Touring Gigs

[Ynot]

The point is that, assuming the correct information about the hazard has been provided to the punter, he or she is at liberty to decide whether to:

 

a) Go along and accept the risk

b) Go along but wear hearing protection to mitigate the risk

c) Don't go

 

Sorry, but there's a FAR more logical option, available not necessarily to the punter, but certainly to the gig...

 

d) TURN THE BL00DY VOLUME DOWN!!

 

In my considered opinion, there is absolutely NO need to run PA at ear-splitting levels. With the audio technology these days, it should be perfectly feasible to place speakers in more locations with lower volumes to give the punters a perfectly good performance without risk of damage to hearing.

It may take a little more work in the design stage, but surely that is feasible?

 

Some might say "We need the volume to get over the screaming kids!" - my answer?

DON'T get over the screams - if THEY can't hear the band, then maybe they'll STOP screaming!

Bit simplistic, I know, but kids have been screaming at boy bands for decades, but the PA levels just seem to get louder and louder. Then so do the screams!

 

And your anaolgy with the road crossing, David, also has a similar common-sense option...

 

d) press the local authority for traffic calming measures which slows the traffic to a sensible speed so you can cross safely anywhere.

[Brian]

The principal onus should be on that individual to take a view on whether something poses too great a risk against the benefit he will get from it.

I can't ever remember going to a gig as an individual and being told the Leq that I would be exposed to. Without that information how am I to make an informed choice?

[drsound]

The principal onus should be on that individual to take a view on whether something poses too great a risk against the benefit he will get from it.

I can't ever remember going to a gig as an individual and being told the Leq that I would be exposed to. Without that information how am I to make an informed choice?

I quite agree with that, I think the promoter should have a responsibility to publish the expected Leq and peak levels and to put those in context of some agreed action limits the same as the NAW regs. Perhaps the action limits could be slightly higher as an 'occasional' hazard but the idea is a good one.

 

Ynot, I agree that the levels are too high, don't get me wrong. I see no need for it and that's a large part of the reason I don't go to many gigs as a punter. I take option C you might say. However I can also accept that there is a large proportion of the population that wants it that way much as I might struggle to understand the rationale.

 

One last crap analogy :o I don't smoke and I think anyone who does is mental but still I'll agree that it's their choice if they want to expose themselves to those risks. I also agree with the rules about putting health warnings on packets so that people can make an informed choice. I'm sure most doctors who treat lung cancer don't smoke just as those of us who use our ears for a living don't like loud distorted music.

 

My point all along has been that it's disingenuous for a punter to go to a stadium show by a band renowned for destroying windows at three miles then expect to not have his hearing damaged, not that it's fine for those levels to be the norm. I personally see it as unnecessary and uncomfortable but if I'm being paid to put 130dB at every seat in the house then that is what I will do. Some might put me in the same categroy as the people who make dogs smoke 40 a day or spray aftershave on mice but there you go.

[Shez]

I'm not convinced about the thinking.

 

Yes, there is a slim possibility that a small number of people may get beaten up, food poisoned or whatever, but when it comes to the SPLs, EVERYBODY at the gig WILL suffer from some degree of damage to their hearing. And fixing it is as simple as moving one finger a centimetre or two.

 

"Risk" implies that there is a possibility; if we're talking 100dB(A)+, it's not a risk, it's an inevitability. I certainly wouldn't want to see legislation quoting specific figures above which we shouldn't go, but a bit of common sense (RIP) on the part of those who determine the sound levels shouldn't be too hard to muster.

 

ETA: lots of posts crossed whilst thinking about this...

[drsound]

[d) press the local authority for traffic calming measures which slows the traffic to a sensible speed so you can cross safely anywhere.

And I could answer it by saying that roads are for cars so use the pedestrian crossings provided then everyone gets what they want.

 

Just like I'd say to the people at gigs that hearing protection is cheap and freely available so stop all the macho bullsh*t and use it. Alternatively vote with your feet and stay at home. It's not going to be an easy job to convince promoters there's anything wrong when they can sell out 400000 nights at the O2 within three minutes of the tickets going on sale.

[Ynot]

Ynot, I agree that the levels are too high, don't get me wrong. I see no need for it and that's a large part of the reason I don't go to many gigs as a punter. I take option C you might say. However I can also accept that there is a large proportion of the population that wants it that way much as I might struggle to understand the rationale.

 

Hmmm...

So you would say that the majority of the audience in an arena concert WANT the volume to be painfully high...?

Whilst I personally have no evidence to dispute it, I'd feel happy arguing against that as a general rule of thumb!

I maintain that the levels are creeping up and up because sound engineers ALLOW it to, and designers DESIGN the system to have the capacity to do so.

Whether punters expect the noise to be so loud is to an extent academic - they may not fully realise the damage they're sustaining, and want to go see their 'fave band' so will go regardless, likely in full ignorance. So what if their ears ring for a day afterwards... It'll pass... Until the day that it doesn't!!

[drsound]

I'm not convinced about the thinking.

 

Yes, there is a slim possibility that a small number of people may get beaten up, food poisoned or whatever, but when it comes to the SPLs, EVERYBODY at the gig WILL suffer from some degree of damage to their hearing. And fixing it is as simple as moving one finger a centimetre or two.

 

"Risk" implies that there is a possibility; if we're talking 100dB(A)+, it's not a risk, it's an inevitability. I certainly wouldn't want to see legislation quoting specific figures above which we shouldn't go, but a bit of common sense (RIP) on the part of those who determine the sound levels shouldn't be too hard to muster.

There's no point in discussing the semantics but risk could be defined as probability x consequence. Granted in this case the "probability" value of your risk would be 1.0 or near enough although the consequence would be alarmingly low on most scales.

 

I've been advocating common sense all along I believe...

 

Meeting to go to, enjoy the debate :o

[Ynot]

[d) press the local authority for traffic calming measures which slows the traffic to a sensible speed so you can cross safely anywhere.

And I could answer it by saying that roads are for cars so use the pedestrian crossings provided then everyone gets what they want.

 

Ah, but like the gig noise being too high for safe hearing, the cars on the road are being driven too fast for safe traverse by the pedestrian.

 

Wearing earplugs could be better analogised perhaps by the pedestrian wearing American football protective gear in case they get clipped by a car...

[Solstace]

I suspect the word "gig" here is being referred as an event with an energetic band or DJ, with huge sound system. What about a sizeable orchestra in a smallish venue, without PA reinforcement? They're capable of some serious levels. Are we going to tell them that they can't perform certain pieces in certain venues? Put them in a box? What about church organ pieces?

 

Admittedly most orchestras won't sustain a volume anywhere near so high as the typical rock concert - but there are some orchestral events I occasionally work with where energy, liveliness and "celebration" (yeah okay, they're worship events) is the order of the day. As such the volumes are more sustained, often going beyond those of rock/pop-oriented gigs in the same venue.

 

So this can be demonstrated to a real problem and yet nobody seems to bat an eyelid until a guitar or turntable turn up with their associated sound system(s). Which I for one find interesting...

[alex_hughes]

I went to see a friends gig at camden barfly recently and the sound was so atrocious that the next band seemed to have a word with the tech.

 

Couldn't hear the lead singer, barely heard the drums over his pumping of the guitars and his EQ was so off the mark it was ridiculous. All I could hear was a constant sound of clipping most of the time. The guy must've thought the red lights were the target to hit.

 

All he needed to do was bring the volume of everything down a notch, then he'd have actually been able to mix it properly. And we'd have been able to hear it. It's a small room so there was no need whatsoever for it to be that loud. There was feedback coming off of the foldback monitors for the bands.

 

End of rant. I have nothing positive to say about the sound that evening. Everything was wrong.

 

On the other end of the scale, I went to the prince in Brixton, They've got these mad funktion.one speakers that move around, you can stand next to them and still have a coherent converstion with your mates. The Sound tech there actually knew what he was doing.

[Shez]

This may become more "interesting" over the next few years as the current generation of ipod kids grows up, starts going to gigs and complains that it's not loud enough because they've already destroyed their hearing...

[Alec]

I suspect the word "gig" here is being referred as an event with an energetic band or DJ, with huge sound system. What about a sizeable orchestra in a smallish venue, without PA reinforcement? They're capable of some serious levels.

 

As a regular earplug wearer to gigs, one of the more painful experiences I went to was the local amateur operatic doing some Gilbert & Sullivan in a church. It seemed like they & the conductor just wanted to show off how much volume they could produce, with little dynamic. After the interval I moved across to a different location where I was out of the direct line of fire. I *hate* it when it's too noisy!

 

Though, interestingly, The Who (who had quite a few reports of being way too loud on tour in 2008) were absolutely spot on at IndigO2 last December, which really surprised me, as I was prepared for a brutal night. The earplugs were soon removed that night.

[GreatBigHippy]

I honestly don't believe and entire audience turns up to a gig expecting hearing damage.

Lets not forget that hearing is quite subjective. The problem occurs when sound levels creep up over time, you get acclimatized to it and so they go up more. Maybe this is what is happening to the sound engineers.

I've worked some folk gigs and I love doing them. Most people are much happier if they can hear all parts of the performance clearly, and will complain if it is too loud!

I went to a gig the other day that I thought was pretty poorly mixed. My thought was that it sounded like a rock and roll engineer trying to mix a folk outfit. Everything was over compressed, muggy, vocals weren't clear. But it was loud right? Bloody awful in my opinion.

The audience is very rarely in possession of all the facts when it comes to protecting their hearing. WE are supposed to be professionals and be able to make judgment calls on these things. How about making supports acts a little quieter, that way when the main band comes on a small increase in levels will suffice yet it will still be well within reasonable limits?

I think actually giving two figs about your audience will get you a better rep than going for the loudest gig of all time.

[drsound]

The problem may be that unless a common sense approach can be adopted by all the interested parties we will end up with 'legislation' telling us how it should be. I still say vote with your feet and don't go to venues where the sound is bad or leave a gig when it gets bad. We can continue to do our best to reduce the levels but I fear we may face an uphill fight.

 

It's interesting that you don't see much mainstream press about levels being too high but people are quick enough to criticise when the sound is 'poor' (in their opinion anyway).

[Andrew C]

Some of the problem may well be with "engineers" who have had their hearing wrecked already. One experience doesn't make for a well rounded theory but here goes anyway:

 

I saw Judy Tzuke a few years back in what is regarded as a difficult venue. Support band was OK, but the sound for Judy was atrocious. Top endy, ear bleedingly awful! The "engineer" was sat back with his arms folded. I surmise that his upper end hearing was non-existent, so he had turned up the HF to compensate.