Glasto Pyramid Stage sound.

[S.Crow]

After just hearing Sweet Child o' Mine on the Radcliffe and Maconie show on BBC Sounds, I wonder if the person mixing that had a dilemma.
I have never been a fan of the band and especially the singer, but even with the bar set very low this vocal was embarrassing.
People have mentioned the vocals being low in the mix for much of the set, so can that be a deliberate ploy where the voice is considered below par?

With regard to the difficulty of getting the bass levels right due to spillage, can that be rectified by using a visualising tool such as used with a DAW?
Wouldn't that quickly show that the bass levels are low?
It's clearly a known issue, so surprised that such a basic thing was overlooked.

[jaminem]

After just hearing Sweet Child o' Mine on the Radcliffe and Maconie show on BBC Sounds, I wonder if the person mixing that had a dilemma.
I have never been a fan of the band and especially the singer, but even with the bar set very low this vocal was embarrassing.
People have mentioned the vocals being low in the mix for much of the set, so can that be a deliberate ploy where the voice is considered below par?

With regard to the difficulty of getting the bass levels right due to spillage, can that be rectified by using a visualising tool such as used with a DAW?
Wouldn't that quickly show that the bass levels are low?
It's clearly a known issue, so surprised that such a basic thing was overlooked.

To be fair to the sound guys there is next to no bass in Duff's bass sound, never has been, its always been all middle and chorus so trying to coax some out of it was always going to be a challenge. I agree the overall level was a bit low, but I did get a bit of 3K coming through in my TV speakers occasionally...

[S.Crow]

I was speaking in general about bass levels as I got the sense it's often an issue at festivals.
I didn't listen to enough of the GNR tune to notice the bass as it was unbearable.

[Aled Hughes]

After just hearing Sweet Child o' Mine on the Radcliffe and Maconie show on BBC Sounds, I wonder if the person mixing that had a dilemma.
I have never been a fan of the band and especially the singer, but even with the bar set very low this vocal was embarrassing.
People have mentioned the vocals being low in the mix for much of the set, so can that be a deliberate ploy where the voice is considered below par?

With regard to the difficulty of getting the bass levels right due to spillage, can that be rectified by using a visualising tool such as used with a DAW?
Wouldn't that quickly show that the bass levels are low?
It's clearly a known issue, so surprised that such a basic thing was overlooked.

You're right that good metering helps a lot, but it's still a bit of a stab in the dark.
Hugh's point that nowadays, with Dante being the norm, a mixing facility located off site makes a lot of sense!

Also, despite the technology being readily available, rock music and live sound still seems to lag behind the times in terms of attempting to deliver the best results for all. Not all bands are taking up IEMs, for example, and all the 'older' musicians still seem to be using huge amps (though I have no idea if they're props, or what the stage volume is). Nicky Wire of the Manic Street Preachers had four Ampeg 8x10s on stage! Who knows if they were all used.
Having said that, the Manics sounded good, and were not all on IEMs. But their setup seemed much simpler than GNR.
On the same point, and again mostly for matters of image and appearance I guess, you almost never see V-Drums on these stages.

I've just watched a bit of GNR back again - I used to be a big fan, though I'm not so big on rock music these days. His voice is nowhere near what it used it be, but I still think it was a decent performance, and he very rarely had any pitching issues. The band played well, and he sung decently enough for the most part. I think it may be worth considering that with hard rock and mad vocal histrionics as GNR are known for, so much of it is reliant on great studio takes and a great studio mix - if you haven't got a great mix, anyone trying to scream high notes is going to sound a bit naff. At the best of times, vocals in live mixes have a tendency to sound 'stuck on', and trying to find a balance between the screaming and the singing during a live pass is tricky if not pushing the impossible.

I bet you could take the recordings of that performance into a studio for a mix and come up with something very decent without resorting to re-recording/replacement.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Just a quick update... I'm told sound from all the stages on all TV, radio and web feeds was provided exclusively by BBC Radio as a stereo mix (no surround provision).

Apparently, "representatives from the acts regularly join the BBC sound mobile truck to advise on what their artist expect."

Make of that what you will

[shufflebeat]

Apparently, "representatives from the acts regularly join the BBC sound mobile truck to advise on what their artist expect."

Make of that what you will

“Every time Axl goes for a high note - press that button marked Mute!”.

[Mike Stranks]

Also, despite the technology being readily available, rock music and live sound still seems to lag behind the times in terms of attempting to deliver the best results for all. Not all bands are taking up IEMs, for example, and all the 'older' musicians still seem to be using huge amps (though I have no idea if they're props, or what the stage volume is)....

Ahem...



... and having been backstage at a festival when the load-in for a well-known three-chord rock band was taking place... All but one of the amp casings were a great advert for Marshall, but contained nothing but fresh air...

I shall refrain from comment on other aspects of this thread...

[shufflebeat]

Can no one be trusted?

[Aled Hughes]

Also, despite the technology being readily available, rock music and live sound still seems to lag behind the times in terms of attempting to deliver the best results for all. Not all bands are taking up IEMs, for example, and all the 'older' musicians still seem to be using huge amps (though I have no idea if they're props, or what the stage volume is)....

Ahem...



... and having been backstage at a festival when the load-in for a well-known three-chord rock band was taking place... All but one of the amp casings were a great advert for Marshall, but contained nothing but fresh air...

I shall refrain from comment on other aspects of this thread...

Ha! Yes, I am aware of that kind of thing. But even if it’s one cranked head into a cab, it still makes for a loud stage.

Also, and this always amuses me… the ‘de facto’ set up for loud rock bands is almost always to have the lead vocal mic pointing almost directly at the drum kit!
On old programs like OGWT etc. they often seemed to have the drums at the front, and the vocals up on a riser behind the kit. I don’t know if this was to combat the leakage or just the fashion of the day, but I think it looked cool, and I bet it made for an easier and better mix!

[Hugh Robjohns]

Also, and this always amuses me… the ‘de facto’ set up for loud rock bands is almost always to have the lead vocal mic pointing almost directly at the drum kit!

The kit is increasingly put behind transparent screens these days to help reduce spill. I noticed some on the Glastonbury stages.

[James Perrett]

Apparently, "representatives from the acts regularly join the BBC sound mobile truck to advise on what their artist expect."

I was going to mention that as a possibility because I know that it happens with some acts. I guess sometimes more successfully than other times.

[sonics]

The kit is increasingly put behind transparent screens these days to help reduce spill. I noticed some on the Glastonbury stages.

I noted the cute little cymbal screens used by the Pretenders. Not that effective, but easy to rig up, and if your drummer is a "cymbal basher" (and many are, let's face it!) it will help save the ears of the musicians in front of the kit. IME you need one for the snare drum as well with those players... <fingers in ears>

Apparently, "representatives from the acts regularly join the BBC sound mobile truck to advise on what their artist expect."

They person who really knows is FOH mixing the band, of course. Managers coming up to the sound booth is one of the worst things in live sound because they usually don't know enough to be helpful. I'm sure the live sound at Glasto was completely different, and mostly very good.

[Essex Boi]

Surely the logistical challenges faced by Auntie Beeb at Glasto where similar to those faced by the Sky Arts team who televised many performances at the Isle of Wight Festival the previous weekend. A different scale, of course, but still a large outdoor festival with many acts on each stage with limited set up time between them. However . . . I don’t recall being disappointed with the audio of the acts I watched on Sky Arts. If so inclined one could even do a direct comparison - Blondie, for example, performed almost the same set at IoW and Glasto.

[Mike Stranks]

Were the Sky Arts broadcasts live or recorded?

[ef37a]

Were the Sky Arts broadcasts live or recorded?

AhA!

Dave.

[Wonks]

It wasn’t live streamed, so a bit after the fact.

Maybe something for the BBC to consider? It’s not like you need to see it live, and a better sound would be appreciated by all.

[Mike Stranks]

Thanks Wonks... what I suspected...

So yet another thread 'comparison' which is spurious... Ho hum...

[tea for two]

Wimby yep more controlled yet it's more complex, still the wimby beeb audio team is 1st class, they would make a decent fist of glasto.

Also, Wimbledon is a bit later in the year and so there is probably a lot less 'snow' and other stuff around!

Dave.

Lol 'snow'

::

When there's crowds of 1million Houston 1986, 2million Paris 1990, 3million Moscow 1997, with fireworks on top of sky scrapers, laser projections onto sky scrapers timed to different parts of the music so that if just one bit goes awry the whole show falls apart no 2nd chances, with emergency services on alert for the millions crowds, special permission from city council, part of the city pretty much at a standstill, then there's the necessary fail safe of playback : cities in concert of Jean Michel Jarre.

But this takes the biscuit

Ahem...



... and having been backstage at a festival when the load-in for a well-known three-chord rock band was taking place... All but one of the amp casings were a great advert for Marshall, but contained nothing but fresh air...

[Essex Boi]

Thanks Wonks... what I suspected...

So yet another thread 'comparison' which is spurious... Ho hum...

Fair enough. I picked Blondie because they were at both IoW and Glasto, without realising it wasn’t a fair comparison.

[Wonks]

Thanks Wonks... what I suspected...

So yet another thread 'comparison' which is spurious... Ho hum...

Fair enough. I picked Blondie because they were at both IoW and Glasto, without realising it wasn’t a fair comparison.

It’s a fair comparison to me. Not a direct comparison, but for the reasons you’ve given it’s certainly valid to compare the two outcomes. To me, the IOW method of a few hours delay (I’m guessing mixed in an off-site studio) gives the far better end result.

It’s certainly not ‘spurious’.

[ef37a]

Now I KNOW I am going to get shot at for being stupidly simplistic but...

Could they not rig a dummy head with mics 'mid mass' and run that back to the guys in the hut so they can get an idea of the coverage?

Or, a wee telly and some headphones?

Dave.

[Mike Stranks]

Thanks Wonks... what I suspected...

So yet another thread 'comparison' which is spurious... Ho hum...

Fair enough. I picked Blondie because they were at both IoW and Glasto, without realising it wasn’t a fair comparison.

It’s a fair comparison to me. Not a direct comparison, but for the reasons you’ve given it’s certainly valid to compare the two outcomes. To me, the IOW method of a few hours delay (I’m guessing mixed in an off-site studio) gives the far better end result.

It’s certainly not ‘spurious’.

I disagree...

Dictionary definition of 'spurious':

not being what it purports to be; false or fake.
(of a line of reasoning) apparently but not actually valid.

Perhaps you'd prefer 'false equivalence'.

There have been several comments in this thread comparing the Glasto output with other apparently similar or large/complex broadcast events. Each has actually been comparing apples and pears...

My statement about spuriousness wasn't just with regard to Essex Boi's comparison, but also to all those other comparisons in the thread which, once considered, don't stand-up to scrutiny.

(BTW... I always check Dictionary Defs to make sure I'm using such words in their correct meaning.)

[Mike Stranks]

Now I KNOW I am going to get shot at for being stupidly simplistic but...

Could they not rig a dummy head with mics 'mid mass' and run that back to the guys in the hut so they can get an idea of the coverage?

Or, a wee telly and some headphones?

Dave.

As you know you're going to get shot at, Dave, I'll save my bullets.

You might say that your comment is 'stupidly simplistic'; I couldn't possibly comment.

[Wonks]

It’s certainly not a like for like comparison, but it’s certainly valid to compare two different methodologies to producing concert coverage, one markedly better than the other. Not ‘fake’ unless you’re Donald Trump.

[shufflebeat]

(BTW... I always check Dictionary Defs to make sure I'm using such words in their correct meaning.)

That’s quite a limb to go out on on this forum.



I’d say “false equivalence” would be more accurate.

The comparison is actually really useful, albeit not for the reason intended - except actual equivalence is not explicit in the original comment, so it could be argued (probably disingenuously) that the valid comparison was the intended one.

But that’s not being suggested.