|
28 Feb 03 - 05:48 PM (#900682) Subject: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: Ebbie Last night the group I play with did a contradance. Due to a mixup, the cables for the amplifiers didn't arrive until an hour later. So we told them, Hey, in the past we played dances for two years without a sound system- no problem. ( I remember years ago in one building the acoustics were so bad we literally set up in the middle of the floor with the dancers on either side of us, and we were prepared to consider it last night.) We had two fiddles, a mandolin, a banjo, a bass and a guitar- a good mix. Plus most of us have played together for a number of years and we know our material. There were only about 30 dancers, so the sound was not absorbed by bodies. We have a wide repetoire and are an enthusiastic, energetic band, you might even say, loud. All in all, the band enjoyed the acoustic sound; we sat close together so we could hear each other. However, the caller (who did have a mike) said that it was hard to call- that evidently because it was much quieter than usual, the dancers laughed and chatted amongst themselves and didn't pay proper attention to the calls. He had to work hard. He, incidentally, is an experienced caller that we like to work with, and he doesn't usually complain about dancers. For one medley, I had a dancer take my guitar while I sat in the back of the hall to monitor the sound. Frankly, the only instruments I could actually hear were the fiddles and the bass, but the beat was good and the balance was OK. The only down side was that, maybe because it was so quiet, the energy seemed low, and the dancers uninspired. Does anyone still do dances without a sound system? |
|
28 Feb 03 - 06:03 PM (#900692) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: open mike I have twice recently played sans sound system, and in trying to be heard, broke 2 picks and one string from playing extra hard, also found my hands cramping some from the tension. The caller in both instances did have a mike, but the presence of adequate sound re-inforcement makes the musicians' job so much more pleasant, and less tension, that i would not play agian without amplification in such circumstances. Where is the dance you play for? The dance I play for regularly is in Chico, CA, and the one i ws sitting in at was in Sonora, also in CA. AT the chico dance i usually play bodhran, which is not so necessary to have a microphone, but the nite the sound system did not show, the guitarist also bailed, so I was recruited to fill in... |
|
28 Feb 03 - 07:13 PM (#900727) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: Ebbie open mike, there is a certain freedom or a back-to-the-basics feel to doing without the microphones, though, don't you think? I agree you have to play harder- but since I quit digging in so deep with my pick I don't seem to break strings anymore. For awhile I was breaking one almost every night. Did you too notice a difference in the dancers' response to the no-miking vs fully amped? That's the part that actually bothers me. I suppose that a little pep talk on dance/caller etiquette might take care of most of it. We're playing for a different dance tomorrow night and I expect we'll have the mikes. We have been talking about trying just one condensor mike and see how we like that. Last night I asked the caller how it would have gone if there'd been twice as many dancers, and he said he would've waited for the cables to arrive, that he wouldn't have tried it otherwise. This, by the way, is in Juneau Alaska |
|
28 Feb 03 - 08:17 PM (#900765) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: Don Firth Makes me kinda wonder. Have modern human beans who inhabit this industrialized, noise-polluted world had their hearing gradually impaired as they grew up with a background of constant racket, complete with amplified music blaring at them all day long everywhere they go? A couple of weeks ago, I attended a concert of early Scottish music given by the Baltimore Consort* in a 900 seat concert hall (actually, a converted church). They used no amplification whatsoever. None. The consort consisted of six people, five of whom played a mixture of instruments including recorders and transverse flutes, a couple of viols including a voil about the size of a cello with six strings and frets (but played with a bow—not a viola da gamba, I was told), a rebec, a renaissance guitar, a cittern, and a lute. The singer was soprano Custer La Rue,** who sang five or six songs during the concert. The acoustics in the hall were good, but nothing outstanding, and even though I was toward the back of the hall, every note came through crisp and clear. This is exactly the sort of group that provided music for dances and soirées in Scottish castles and for the court of, say Queen Elizabeth I. These little bashes, as I understand it, often tended to get a bit loud and rowdy, contrary to what some early music aficionados would have you believe, and yet the consorts who played at these things managed very nicely without the aid of modern electronics, i.e. amplification. Don Firth (Thread drift) *Terrific group. They have a whole stack of CDs, a half-dozen or more, on Dorian label. **Custer La Rue was raised with folk songs and ballads, and she has three CDs (maybe four) of her own out on the same label. She's a trained soprano, and on the ballad CDs, she's accompanied by various members of the Baltimore Consort (mostly by lutenist Ronn MacFarlane), so she sounds a bit more formal than most folkies are used to, but I like her just fine. |
|
28 Feb 03 - 08:30 PM (#900772) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: M.Ted My band used to play a lot of Balkan stuff, and often, for at least a few numbers, we would play "village style", in the center of the dance floor, with the dancers in a circle around us (generally singing)--this was always a real crowd pleaser--Soloists could dance around a bit, and even played to individual dancers--We were loud, though--and had loud instruments-- |
|
28 Feb 03 - 09:00 PM (#900789) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: Ebbie The hall we were in last night is an old gymnasium- and not too many of them were built with an ear toward acoustics. Some churches and performing arts centers have marvelous capabilities- but I rarely get to play in them! One time we did a dance in a different gym and that was the worst you can imagine. We finally got off the stage and stood level with the dancers which helped some. At the end when we were breaking down our stuff, our fiddler was whistling as he carried a table down the hall to storage. As he traveled down the hall, his whistle whee...whee...whoo...whee...whoo...d from wall to wall. |
|
28 Feb 03 - 10:31 PM (#900832) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: GUEST,Les B. Ebbie - One group I play with does contra dances - one or sometimes two fiddles, banjo, guitar/s, bass, and mandolin/s. We haven't played without mics for a number of years, but we have in the past. It's not easy if you get above 30 to 40 people dancing. I know of no callers who'll try to work with out a mic. Although I've always been fascinated with reports of old-time fiddlers who both played and called the dance at the same time! Once, because of circumstances, we played village style, right in the center of the dancers in a big barn. It just barely worked. I too have walked out in the hall to see what the dynamics were like and it's always the same - just the bass and the fiddles can be heard. But that's as it should be - the main melody and tempo instruments are what the dancers need to hear. I've always thought that the banjo, guitars and mandos were there more for the fiddle and bass players to hear the internal pulse or rhythm of the band. We do stand, however, most of the time when we play. It gives a little more energy to the band. |
|
28 Feb 03 - 10:52 PM (#900847) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: NicoleC Old-fashioned pre-amplification buildings with decent to good acoustics tend to sound worse with reinforcement. And if you have a nice quiet audience, it's lovely. But a place like a gymnasium? It's practically a must if you want to be heard at all. I don't think it's just modern noise pollution -- although I suspect we do suffer much more hearing damage than in quieter centuries. In addition to the physical spaces, I think audiences and musicians behave differently. Audiences are louder and musicians (particularly singers) have less training in controlling the volume of their instrument. And events are usually about filling the room with music instead of allowing the back to be nice and quiet where one can carry on a conversation, while those up front enjoy the music. Sound reinforement has definately changed the dynamic between performer and audience. Successful acoustic events seem to require the willingness of both the audience and the performers to make them happen. Whereas with reinforcement, one can be heard with or without the permission of the audience. |
|
28 Feb 03 - 11:08 PM (#900861) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: GUEST,Les B. I also meant to comment about the Baltimore Consort and Custer LaRue. We had them as a part of our performance series back about six years ago. They performed, sans amps, in a 1000 seat auditorium, put on a great performance and were heard nicely. The diffence, however, between them and a dance is that people know they're supposed to shut up and listen at a concert. Even solo classical guitarists can be heard in a decent concert hall. I can't image the Baltimore Consort, or a classical guitarist, being heard at a dance in a gym or barn or church meeting hall - it's two different entirely different beasts! To my mind the traditional instruments that can generally be heard, unamped, are bagpipes, accordions, and fiddles. |
|
28 Feb 03 - 11:28 PM (#900870) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: Don Firth True, indeed, Les, but I still wonder how consorts such as that managed in castle dining halls and ball rooms--which they did. Why then and not now? I'm not being argumentative, I'm really curious about this. The acoustics in some cathedrals were downright marvelous, but in most castles and such, they were probably pretty catch-as-catch-can. Nicole makes a good point with "Successful acoustic events seem to require the willingness of both the audience and the performers to make them happen." Don Firth |
|
28 Feb 03 - 11:28 PM (#900871) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: Sandy Mc Lean In Cape Breton before the days of amplification fiddlers would use high bass (A-E-A-E) tuning. Two fiddlers would play the melody in unison but in 2 different octaves. This would cause the sound waves to add in phase creating an acoustic amplification. Sandy |
|
28 Feb 03 - 11:58 PM (#900880) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: GUEST,Jim Krause who didn't bother with logging in I also wonder about the size of some of the dance parties of yesteryear. The most recent time I played without benefit of microphones was at a re-enactor's ball at Ft. Osage near Kansas City, MO. We were in the attic of one of the museum's buildings which had log walls, bare rafters, and a wood floor. I don't think there were but maybe twenty-five to thirty dancers all told. The caller was knowlegable and experienced, and called without a mic. We musicians did fine. We had two fiddles, a hammered dulcimer, and a guitar, maybe. (It has been a couple of years ago.) Jim |
|
01 Mar 03 - 04:09 AM (#900955) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: Ebbie Don, there may be another element to put in the mix. Consider the difference in quality of the 45rpm vs today's CD. And much earlier still than the 45, there was the cylinder record. I've heard them and no one would mistake them for a live orchestra! My point being that maybe audiences in the past were less demanding than today's. |
|
01 Mar 03 - 11:01 AM (#901076) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: GUEST,leeneia Keep in mind that viols are big instruments. The sound box on a low viol is much larger than on a guitar or violin. However "The Renaissance lasted 150 years. It would have been 100, but the viols had to tune." |
|
01 Mar 03 - 12:05 PM (#901126) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: dick greenhaus Puts me to mind of several square dances I played at for the New Sork Society for the Deaf. The only real effective instrument (amplified or not} was a washtub bass placed on a raised stage. The dancers may not have heard the fiddle, but the room resounded to the beat. |
|
01 Mar 03 - 12:16 PM (#901133) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: M.Ted The instruments we play, and the technique we use are all oriented toward what amplifies and records well--If you hear field recordings of old time fiddlers, you will notice that they were really powerful players--another way that they got volume was to have a lot of instruments playing on a single part--also, it is important to note that much of the traditional dance music was played on instruments like bagpipes, shawms, brass instruments of various sorts, and with drums of one sort or another--military and military style bands were often used for dances-- Of course, they didn't have the ambient noise that we do, no air conditioners, no heavy traffic noise, no appliances,no cell phones, no 200 watt per channel car stereos-- |
|
01 Mar 03 - 09:20 PM (#901399) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: Hrothgar From a dancer's point of view - the secret (not much of a secret) is the beat. Hard work for the caller, though. |
|
02 Mar 03 - 12:39 PM (#901735) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: Frankham I've noticed a disturbing trend in the international folk dance community in the area where I live. The dancers seem to rely on recordings and to discourage live music. I suspect that this is because there are not many bands that can play the different styles...at least not many are encouraged by the international folk dance community. The musicians who play for international dancers are into a specific music such as Balkan. The contra-dance NE style or seems to have more bands available. There's something to be said for the "kitchen junket" or rolling up the rugs in a larger home and encouraging contras, squares or big circle dances but this isn't done much more around these parts compared to how it used to be. There is something alienating about sound reinforcement in a larger hall. Also, the idea that bigger is better seems to prevail. I'm in favor of small dances where you don't need amplification. Or if there is, let it be please with a sound engineer who knows how to mic accoustic instruments. Lack of that today, because most of the so-called "accoustic" players are using direct boxes with lines in from transducer or magnetic pickups. This is rampant in the coffee-houses. Then there is the trouble of noise level at dances. The larger the dance the more yelling, talking, stomping and so forth takes place which you don't want to discourage...it's part of the fun..but the accoustic unamplified instruments aren't heard. Instead of the local gym, it would be great to find halls that could accomodate a decent accoustical environment. Also, callers with strong voices. Frank Hamilton |
|
02 Mar 03 - 02:35 PM (#901812) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: Ebbie Last night's event was a bit different from what we anticipated. Instead of a dance we were kind of background music. We played hard for more than three hours, though, with lots of medleys, mostly reels and some old-timey tunes, a few waltzes, a few sung songs. We used just one microphone (a condensor) and two speakers. Our sound man had us group for balance through the mike- it apparently sounded fine; people told us so. We could hear each other very well. The whole thing was fun, it was kind of like a focused jam. We were two fiddles, a mando, a guitar and a bass. I suspect we're going to hold out for a single mike whenever we can. |
|
03 Mar 03 - 01:30 AM (#902154) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: Les B Don Firth - I too am curious as to how they did music in the old days and some of the answers above seem likely; less audience expectation, less competing noise and sometimes very powerful players. I've read of an early day banjo contest in the Bowery between two top players - probably similar to what we now call "clawhammer" style - and there were supposedly nearly a thousand in attendance. I'm really curious how they were heard. There was a quick scene of this kind of music in the recent film "Gangs of New York" - showing a black man playing an early skinheaded banjo. I also saw a reference once about songs in the non-amplified era being sung slower - so there was more time to absorb the meaning. |
|
03 Mar 03 - 02:43 AM (#902170) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: open mike bluegrass players often use one mike to amplify the entire band. there are some sensitive ones these days which can carry the sound from a whole stage-full of players..this necessitates a different sort of choreography in order to dance around the mike so that players can take solos, be heard, etc. this adds an aspect of communication betweer band members which takes some training...but frees up the musicians to be able to be more mobile on stage, too. The sound balance is established by position in relationship to the microphone, and eliminates the possibility of a sound tech twirling knobs to balance the sound.. so you need to be more honest with players who are too loud and tell them to stand back...we have used a microphone like this for radio studio performances as well as at a bluegrass/acoustic jam. |
|
03 Mar 03 - 04:21 PM (#902634) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: GUEST,MTed Frank: The International folk dancers generally learn dances that are choreographed to certain records--there are a good number of teachers who travel around teaching their choreographies and selling the records, and there are a lot of dancers who only know how to dance this way--of course, folk dancing to recorded music often seems more like an excercise class than a social event, since there is not much for the non-participant to do-- |
|
03 Mar 03 - 04:47 PM (#902660) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: McGrath of Harlow How did they manage in the old days? They didn't have callers, people knew the dances. Or, I imagine, if they didn't a caller would operate the same way they still do in a lot of dances today, by taking a few minutes teaching people how to do it before the band starts in to play the dance, and then more or less stands back, and perhaps shouts a bit of encouragement. Or stops calling and starts playing an instrument, or joins in the dance. |
|
03 Mar 03 - 05:18 PM (#902684) Subject: RE: Playing Dances without a Sound System From: Crane Driver Well, we were about an hour into the dance, at a wedding reception, and - bang - out went all the lights. Not just in the hotel - the whole village was blacked out. In fact, most of South Gower was without power. Of course, some big pop group was doing an open-air concert in Swansea that night - perhaps they blew all the fuses. Anyway, there we were, with no sound system. The hotel brought out candle lanterns, we kept on playing, and the guests kept on dancing. I'd like to see them try doing that with a disco!!! Yes it was hard for the caller, but he got in among the dancers, and they recognised the problem and listened to him. I think McGrath is right - the dancers used to know the dances. They didn't have callers in those old castles - knowing the dances was part of the etiquette that let you in. And minstrel galleries do happen to be placed in the best position for being heard - strange coincidence, that. BTW, we were a loud band that night - two fiddles, concertina, guitar, drum and TWO accordians. Try ignoring that lot!! Andrew |