Touring Gigs

[Ynot]

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.

 

How will punters know when a gig they've paid up to a £100 for a ticket for is going to be too loud? It's not as if the promoters are going to advertise that fact.

What about past experience...?

As has been quoted here, one group (The Who) were awful in 2008 but spot on in 2009, so that approach falls down.

 

No - sorry, but the ONLY way to ensure that levels are kept sensible is proper SELF regulation - whether that means designers spec'ing smaller rigs or even using quality metering to check SPL and noise before subjecting the public to the pain.

 

Voting with your feet as a punter can be expensive, as you may well not know how bad it is (if even you care as a teenager...) until you get there.

 

A concurrent post has been automatically merged from this point on.

 

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?

I actually chuckled to read this.

Yes, full orchestras can and do deliver a belting volume of a performance at times, BUT (and this is the biggie) as you say that volume is not sustained over any appreciable length of time.

Bands and particularly DJs will plough on regardless with loud number after loud number with very little break - and ALL of it is often amp'd up to it's eyeballs - seemingly just 'because we can'...

 

Sorry, but it's utter MADNESS.

[drsound]

No - sorry, but the ONLY way to ensure that levels are kept sensible is proper SELF regulation - whether that means designers spec'ing smaller rigs or even using quality metering to check SPL and noise before subjecting the public to the pain.

Yes, I would have thought it was fairly clear that the only person who can control the SPL is the operator. The only question remaining is what is a sensible level.

 

If the designer is waiting until he gets a meter onto the system to find out what SPL he'll get then he isn't worth much as a designer. Things have moved on somewhat from the 'fly a sh*tload of boxes and see what we get' approach.

 

Where did noise get in on the act? I'd say distortion was probably a more apt measurement to take.

 

Not sure about the smaller rig argument, this won't work until you've changed the culture of the operators. You'll just end up with the same SPL with more distortion as they try to get the level they want. It has to come from the promoters who are the ones pushing for ridiculous levels.

 

I think we've got onto a slightly tangential argument here. Can we agree that there are lots of gigs that are too loud or of such poor quality that they cause hearing damage, that it shouldn't be so and that the change in culture has to come from those putting on the events?

 

A concurrent post has been automatically merged from this point on.

 

Sorry, but it's utter MADNESS.

Yes it is but then so is smoking, drinking, eating fatty foods, driving a motor vehicle and a plethora of other things in life. You try persuading people of that before it's caused permanent damage. It's almost like we have self-destruction built in!

[Ynot]

Sorry, but it's utter MADNESS.

Yes it is but then so is smoking, drinking, eating fatty foods, driving a motor vehicle and a plethora of other things in life. You try persuading people of that before it's caused permanent damage. It's almost like we have self-destruction built in!

Actually, with the exception of smoking doing any of the above to EXCESS is mad - driving, eating, drinking etc in moderation is perfectly safe.

It's the excessive nature of the few individuals which is the danger, and it seems to be a cultural decision on behalf of a large number of sound guys/gals to go for the excessive levels that is the problem here.

[matt_beal]

Being cynical, I'm not surprised organisers want gigs (but especially clubs) to be loud... it might just be me but if I can't talk to my mates, I tend to spend a lot more at the bar... :o

[Just Some Bloke]

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. Going to a gig is dangerous - you could be beaten up, get food poisoning from a dodgy hotdog, catch god knows what from being in close proximity to thousands of other people and yes, even damage your hearing.

If I get beaten up at a gig I can contact the police who can playback the CCTV footage, then knick the perpetrator and the courts can send them to jail.

If I get food poisoning I can contact Trading Standards who can (if lots of others have had the same thing) revoke the trader's license.

If I damage my hearing who can deal with that? No-one.

Thus, it makes the engineer both perpetrator and policeman in one job.

 

I haven't been to a big show as a punter for a long time but given that there's always a disclaimer about strobe lighting, the use of 'smoke' or pyros and anything else that might cause harm I would expect that the ticket also gives a warning about loud noises.

Putting that together with the previous comment, does that mean that putting up a sign saying "Warning, these hotdogs may contain Salmonella" will make everything OK?

[Big Dave]

A punter has sucessfully sued a German promoter for damage to their hearing at a gig. I've posted the link on here before somewhere and I'll try and find it later.

 

Also, most of the stupidly loud gigs I've had to mix have been at the request (read instruction) from the promoter/band manager/tour manager. Its not normally a request you can say no to if you want to keep mixing said act.

[Ynot]

Also, most of the stupidly loud gigs I've had to mix have been at the request (read instruction) from the promoter/band manager/tour manager. Its not normally a request you can say no to if you want to keep mixing said act.

Whilst not quite on the same ballpark, this attitude from the management could be compared to other aspects of live shows...

 

"What? The pyros I've spent cash on are too close to the punters at the front?

Don't worry - they're fine - fire them or I'll fire you...!"

 

Would you fire the 30 foot gerbs in that instance??

[Dave]

"What? The pyros I've spent cash on are too close to the punters at the front?

Don't worry - they're fine - fire them or I'll fire you...!"

 

Would you fire the 30 foot gerbs in that instance??

NO.

 

Most pyro manufacturers don't quote safe distances any more - it's up to the user to assess the effect and decide the same distance for a given environment. I would have done this and put it in a risk assessment that went to the client. If he subsequently told me to break it, I would say no, you employed me as a professional and accepted my expert opinion, so please don't now try to overrule me.

 

There was a well-publicised case a few years ago where a band sacked someone they had employed as a tour manager because he wouldn't agree to a travel schedule that was unsafe (too much driving and not enough sleep). The manager claimed for unfair dismissal and won. A key fact in his favour was that the accepted definition of a tour manager included H&S. Pyrotechnician is the same.

 

I could also mention the words Great White

[Ynot]

NO.

 

Most pyro manufacturers don't quote safe distances any more - it's up to the user to assess the effect and decide the same distance for a given environment. I would have done this and put it in a risk assessment that went to the client. If he subsequently told me to break it, I would say no, you employed me as a professional and accepted my expert opinion, so please don't now try to overrule me.

 

There was a well-publicised case a few years ago where a band sacked someone they had employed as a tour manager because he wouldn't agree to a travel schedule that was unsafe (too much driving and not enough sleep). The manager claimed for unfair dismissal and won. A key fact in his favour was that the accepted definition of a tour manager included H&S. Pyrotechnician is the same.

PRECISELY!

 

So why are there mix engineers - some on this thread - saying that "If the client tells me to turn it up to 11, then I will - cos he's the one paying my wages, even if I, as an experienced and caring person believe the sound to be dangerously LOUD...??!"

 

Because there are some who are saying just that.

:(

[Shaggy]

Because there are more mix engineers than there are gigs, it's really easy to get sacked and most people would rather be working than looking for a job with a reputation as someone who'll argue with a client?

[Bobbsy]

Well, if I summarise this topic, the general tack seems to be that nobody likes gigs that are too loud but, short of somebody being sued, there isn't much we can do about it. Why?

 

Over on the dreaded Facebook, somebody just sent me a thing to list my five favourite live rock shows....I don't normally do such

Facebookery but this one sounded like fun so it got me thinking about my five favourites.

 

Guess what? Not one of the five most memorable gigs I've been to were "too" loud. All were notable for the performances on stage but, also, for the quality of the sound. That's quality, not quantity. I've never walked out of a concert thinking "that's great 'cause my ears are still ringing". Now, we all know there are SOME morons out there who take the view that "louder is better no matter what" but, outside of hard core heavy metal, does that view really represent the majority of punters out there?

 

It would be interesting to find out if the "we have to make it loud 'cause that's what the punters want" brigade have it right....or would the majority prefer more comfortable SPLs and better sound.

 

Bob

[Killyp]

One of the best gigs I've ever been too was Massive Attack at the docks in Bristol - amazing musical performance, and stunning lighting, but above all (for me) was the sound was absolutely fantastic. Very loud, but not too loud. That's how good gigs should be IMO...

[Just Some Bloke]

One of the best gigs I've ever been too was Massive Attack at the docks in Bristol - amazing musical performance, and stunning lighting, but above all (for me) was the sound was absolutely fantastic. Very loud, but not too loud. That's how good gigs should be IMO...

The trouble is that one person's "very loud but not too loud" is another person's "too loud". :(

[DrummerJonny]

on this topic, has anyone heard of the valve soundsystem?

 

http://www.tagbanger.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/valve.jpg

 

The Valve Sound System is a touring sound system specifically designed for the playback of drum and bass music. Created by UK artists, Dillinja and Lemon D, the system has a total power output of 96kW. The system consists of 52 subwoofers (designed and built for the valve system) as well as Mid-High cabs made by Funktion One. The full system is not used in smaller venues. It was designed exclusively for drum and bass acoustics and as such is the first of its kind.

 

thats not only excessive, its irresponsible imo...

I decided not to go with my mates....

however, they do redeem themselves a little bit by giving earplugs out on the door...

[Ben Langfeld]

Now, we all know there are SOME morons out there who take the view that "louder is better no matter what" but, outside of hard core heavy metal, does that view really represent the majority of punters out there?

 

As I say, Tina Turner was FAR louder than Metallica. I had my baby blues in and was incredibly uncomfortable. I am into metal, I manage a metal act, I like the Scandinavian stuff.... I hate things being too loud. Seemingly, middle aged men and women like it louder than me....