Entertainer vs. Artist

                On August 18th, Josh Groban made a very profound statement while hosting Rising Star.  He said, "An entertainer gives people what they want; an artist gives people what they didn’t know they wanted.”  He was speaking about artists who poses a truly creative talent.  They can see past fog of current success and popularity.  They have the vision and courage to create moments that raise the bar of musical entertainment. 

                I was thinking about this concept during my Orlando vacation.  It seems that amusement parks suffer from the same issue.  It is difficult to come up with an entertainment concept that is original.  Every ride I went on reminded me of at least three others from either the same or a competing park. 

                The truth is that all creative people are scared.  We are scared that our audience will not appreciate our creation.  Commercial entities like amusement parks and record labels seek assurance of audience acceptance.   They cannot afford to invest in a creation that does not earn them a profit.  If a ride or a song proves itself to be successful it becomes a mold for future creations.  They take the same concept, change a few minor details and call it a new creation. 

                This is the method of an entertainer.  They find out what the people want and supply it.  Larger entertainment entities will mass produce a concept until the interest in is runs dry.  Music labels utilize this process to such a degree that every song on the charts sounds the same.  Small scale musical entertainers join in the process by performing popular cover songs exactly the way the original artist recorded them. 

                True artists find it very difficult to conform to this method.  We want to express our ideas and push the boundaries of entertainment into new and exiting territories.   Unfortunately, we become torn between the desire to create and the desire to make money at our craft.  It is far easier to land paying gigs as a talented cover artist or tribute band as opposed to an original act.  My wife faces the same dilemma in photography.  She could easily achieve monetary success as a wedding or portrait photographer.  However, she desires to create art and inspire people. 

                All creative people need to consider this trade-off while planning their strategy.  If you are a pure artists, you may have to retain a separate occupation and pursue your art on the side.  If you can stomach some compromise, you may pursue entertainment as an occupation while dabbling in artistry.  The main point to take away from all of this is that it is important to know yourself, know how things work in the world, and find the best way for these two things to coexist.  Artists who do not take the time to understand these things find themselves constantly frustrated.  The world is naturally resistant to change and reluctant to explore new things.  Artists need to find ways to disarm this resistance if they are going to "... gives people what they didn’t know they wanted."

 

Monitors (part 3 - the nature of sound)

                We are going to wrap up this discussion on monitors by talking about the nature of sound and how it affects the monitor mix.  Ambient sound is very different from the sound that comes out of a speaker.  There is not enough time or space on this post to discuss all of the reasons for this, but I will try to touch on the main points.  I will also try to describe things in a less technical, more down to earth manner.

                All sound is produced by vibration.  Try to picture a grand piano in your mind.  Think about the sound board, what it looks like and how it vibrates.  Think about what the piano sounds like from the perspective of the player, standing next to it (in front of the opening) or standing several feet away.  The complexity and variety of just this one ambient sound example is amazing. 

                Now think about a stereo pair of microphones picking up this sound from a specific location.  All of the other vantage points are lost, and the complexity of the ambient sound is reduced.  The sound is transformed into electrical impulses which travel through wires and sound equipment.  Finally these electrical impulses cause a pair of speakers to vibrate in an attempt to recreate the sound.  The size and shape of the speaker cones are very different from the sound board of the piano.  The directionality of the speaker sound signal is also much more focused when compared to the wide dispersion pattern of the piano sound board. 

                This one example of electronic sound recreation paints a pretty good picture of the differences between ambient and speaker generated sound.  Classical musicians are purists when it comes to this topic.  If you attend a classical concert in a true concert hall, no (or hardly any) microphones and speakers are used for amplification.  If you do see microphones, they are probably being used for recording.  The hall is designed to naturally amplify the sound presented from the stage and apply a beautiful ambient reverb.  The musicians hear themselves and each other through ambient sound only.  The "monitor mix" (if we can call it that) is manipulated by the positioning of the musicians on the stage. 

                Unfortunately, not all music is capable of achieving this natural balance.  A single acoustic guitar in a club or stadium will never be able to compete with a drum set and the other instruments in the band.  Electric guitars and bass guitars are not even designed to produce much ambient sound.  The tone is created through electronic signals received through pickups and then transmitted through amplifiers.  To achieve balance, performers with these elements and environments need to use sound systems to provide the proper amplification and balance of sound.    

                Although speaker vibration can never exactly replicate ambient sound, separation helps with intelligibility.  Separating a sound source across a wide array of speakers (like surround sound) helps to achieve some of the space found in ambient sound.   However, monitor mixes are usually transmitted in mono through one speaker per performer (or group of similar performers).  Can you imagine how many speakers it would take to provide separate surround sound mixes for every performer?  The more sound signals you try to cram into one mono speaker (or a pair of stereo ear buds), the more cramped, muddy and unintelligible everything gets.

                The degradation of sound quality from conversion to and from electronic impulses combined with the sound dispersion nature of speakers are the two main causes of monitor mix issues.  When we add lack of separation to the equation, monitor mixes become balancing acts of what will fit and what we can afford to lose or turn down.  This reality is the reason for everything that I wrote in part one and two of this series on monitors.  

Monitors (part 2 – hearing the other stuff)

Last week we discussed the topic of hearing ourselves in the monitor mix.  For a great performance experience, we also need to be able to hear the music we are performing along with and the audience we are performing to.  I would say that I have listed these components in order of importance as the second and third elements of the monitor mix.  Let’s discuss them in this order.

First I would like to mention that the ideal monitor situation is being able to mix these three components with this order of importance, but it is not always possible.  Some musicians sing while playing an instrument (like guitar or piano).  I play piano/keyboard while singing for most of my songs, so I can relate to this issue.  Most monitor systems are not able to handle such a complex array of sounds.  If you try to send a detailed representation of piano playing and singing with a mix of background music and an underlay of audience sound through a mono speaker (or even a stereo set of ear buds) the sound becomes saturated, muddy and unintelligible.  In the absence of very expensive monitor systems, singers who also play have to live with the fact that they will have to sacrifice the detail of either their voice or instrument in the monitor mix (sometimes a little of both).  Most performers prefer their voice and chose to limit the detail of their instrument.  This causes it to fall into the category of background music with the track or other musicians, and makes it more difficult for the performer to play expressively.  Since it is already difficult to both sing and play expressively at the same time, this makes some performers consider the notion of ditching their instrument and just singing.  I’ve thought about it, but I really love singing from the piano.  It makes me feel grounded to the music.   

Some artists perform with tracks, others perform with other musicians and some perform with a combination of both.  Achieving a good monitor mix with a track is easier than with other live musicians, because track possess compressed and controlled dynamic variations.  This causes it to sit in a steady position underneath our own level in the monitor mix.  In addition, the lack of additional musicians means that only one monitor mix is required as opposed to multiple personalized mixes.  Besides being easer on the mix engineer, this also makes it easier to use floor or mounted monitors since there is no issue with bleed and conflicting mixes.  However, performing with a track is also difficult, because the tempo is solid like a metronome.  There is no room for fluctuation or variation since everything is set in the recording.  In addition, there is no visual stimulus and interpersonal communication between the performers.  All of these factors cause hearing the track well to be even more important.  The artist needs to be totally in sync with the rhythm and tempo of the track in order to make the performance feel authentic.

When performing with live musicians, robotic timing issues are not a problem.  The musicians usually setup in a formation that allows them to see each other and they practice the art of following each other.  However, the monitor mix becomes more complex.  Each performer needs a monitor mix that highlights their playing.  Also, different musicians may want more or less of the other musical parts in the mix depending on what they play.  For example, a drummer will usually want more of the bass guitar in his/her monitor and less of the background vocals.  If the monitor mixes are being sent to floor or mounted monitors, the sound of each one travels across the stage filling it with conflicting levels.   In addition, most systems will not have enough auxiliary sends to accommodate all of these different mixes (especially at the gigs that the “average Joe” musicians play).  When this happens, monitor mixes become compromises that are sent to two or three different groups of musicians. 

In ear monitors solve the issue of sound bleed issue between mixes.  Each musician has a private and isolated monitor mix (up to the number of mixes the system can accommodate).  Even when a solo musician is performing with a track, in ear monitors prevent stage monitor bleed from competing with the house mix.  In addition, in ear monitors bring the mix closer to the musician instead of broadcasting it through the air from the floor.  This is a more efficient method of sound transfer with less loss of signal.  In situations where a separate monitor mix engineer is not available, there are personal monitor mix control devices on the market that give the musicians control of their own mix by providing volume knobs for the level of each element of the band. 

However, in ear monitors have their own set of issues.  I will get more into the technical aspects of each of these options next week, but a brief explanation is appropriate here.  First, they can be much more expensive than floor monitors (especially when using custom ear mold ear pieces).  Second, they disconnect the musician from the outside world.  The sound isolation is so effective that what a musician hears usually does not match what he/she sees.  There may be a tone of visual energy happening on the stage, but the musician hears only the elements that have been placed in his/her mix.  This can take a while to get use to.  It is especially difficult for singers and wind players at first, since their tone contains both internal and external elements.  Being disconnected from the external sound environment causes an imbalance between the natural internal and external aural sensations that these performers are use to experiencing.  In addition, this level of isolation makes any type of musician more dependent on the quality of the monitor mix.  If a floor monitor mix does not have every element that the performer needs sound bleed will usually provide the missing ingredients to some extent.  With in ear monitors there is no sound bleed and the performer is only receiving what the mix gives them.  This is why you sometimes see a performer take out one or both of their earpieces in the middle of a performance.  If the mix is really bad, they may prefer to get by using the ambient stage sound.   

               The next in ear issue leads us to the component of audience sound within the monitor mix.  Performers need to hear the audience’s response while performing.  Although this is not as critical as the other two components, audience energy is part of the musical experience.  In ear monitors disconnect the musician from this energy which can result in a mismatch in emotion between the audience and the performer.  The crowd may be going wild while the performer feels that they are not into it, or the performer may be in another musical dimension while the audience is dead.  Larger systems try to fix this issue by using separate microphones to feed the sound of the audience into the monitor mix.  However, this is another element being added to an already complex mix, and it can easily be out of proportion when compared to reality.  The sound of an audience being picked up through microphones and crammed into the mix of an in ear system will never be same as the natural ambient sound of the room. 

               Disconnect with the audience is less likely with floor or mounted monitors since the performer can still hear the ambient sound of the room.  However, the monitor and main levels can sometimes get high enough to drown out the sound of the audience.  Larger systems accommodate for this by providing separate monitors that are transmitting only the sound of the audience being picked up through microphones.  These separate audience support monitors are the best solution since they provide separation from the sound of the music coming through the other monitors.  In smaller systems, the performer has to live with adding a touch of audience sound under the other two components of the mix and hope that the speaker does not get too muddy with all that sound information.  Some people choose to just omit the audience from the mix and live with the loss of connection.

               As you can see, creating the ideal monitor mix is very complicated.  The sound that our ears naturally perceive through ambient hearing is very complex.  The limitations of electronic equipment make it very difficult to recreate this type of listening environment on an amplified level.  Next week we will discuss more of the technical sound engineering issues that cause these limitations.     

Monitors (part 1 – hearing ourselves)

What we hear on stage has a huge impact on the quality of our performance.  Regardless of the instrument, any performer needs to hear the proper balance of him/herself, the music they are performing along with and the audience they are performing to.  There is no universal setting since all performers are different.  Their listening preferences tend to be unique and subjective.  However, the three components listed above need to be present and blended to taste.      

               Although settings may vary, I think all performers would agree that the most prominent component of the monitor mix should be their own instrument or voice.  We will focus this week’s discussion on this component and cover the other aspects of this huge topic in future weeks.  Contrary to common belief, the need to predominantly hear one’s own performance is not based in vanity (at least not entirely).  Creating a truly great musical performance requires a mixture of kinesthetic, aural, visual and emotional stimulus.  The visual element retains a more important role in the other two components of the monitor mix (hearing the band/track and the audience); however, some instruments are easier to play with visual stimulus (like piano and guitar).  The connection between sound and touch, in my opinion, is the key to accessing a skilful and emotional musical performance. 

               An outside evidence of this can be found in video games.  Poor quality video games (or video game setups) provide mainly visual stimulus.  Enhanced gamming situations provide added aural and kinesthetic stimulus to make the simulated situation more true to life.  In the same way, when a singer or instrumentalist has the ideal balance of kinetic and aural stimulus the performance is enhanced.  In private practice we feel the vibration of our vocal chords or instrument, the texture of the keys or strings and the friction or resistance (weight) of each motion.  We also hear every detail of the tone that we are producing and how it is related to the kinesthetic stimulus we are receiving.  We become accustom to this aural and kinesthetic connection and use it to access the connection between our emotions and our physical performance.  When an aspect of this stimulus is out of balance, the performer can become inhibited from achieving his/her best results.

Performance situations that most closely resemble the solo practice experience are solo acoustic and small group acoustic (like folk acoustic groups and jazz trio / quartets).  The simple sound mix and acoustic nature of these performance situations allow for an ideal environment of kinesthetic and aural stimulus.  When the number of instruments and overall sound level increases it becomes more difficult for each individual performer to hear themselves.  Tones mix, compete and mask each other causing a lack of intelligibility.  In addition, we sense vibration from the instruments or amplification of the other performers which disrupts part of our own kinesthetic stimulus. 

When this happens, we need to compensate by amplifying the sound of our performance above the level of the competing sounds.  This can be accomplished through the use of personal amplifiers for guitar, bass, keyboard and other electronic instrumentalists.  Vocal and acoustic instrumental performers that require microphones (or amplified electronic instruments that are being run directly through the system) often use floor or mounted monitors.  In addition, any of these types of performers can use in ear monitors to aid in hearing themselves. 

All of these options have pros and cons that will be discussed in future posts.  For the sake of this discussion, you could imagine the affect that competing monitors and amplifiers could have on stage.  The sound bleed of opposing monitors causes each performer to raise their monitor in a never ending competition to be heard.  In ear monitors avoid this by providing isolation, but this isolation causes a disconnect with both the other musicians and the audience.  Plus, artificially amplified sound is quite different from natural ambient sound.  Blend and dynamic contrast often becomes dependent on changing mix levels during different parts of the performance.  This requires a separate monitor mix engineer who is thoroughly acquainted with each song and prepared to automate the mix to each performer’s taste.  Most of us do not have this type of monitor situation at our performances, and so the battle continues.  We keep seeking that ideal kinesthetic and aural experience, but our artificial attempts to achieve it fall short.  Keep in mind; this is just our attempts to hear ourselves during the performance.  Next week we will discuss hearing the other musical elements and the audience.       

                 

Sometimes Less Is More

               Most performers have an ideal musical experience in their mind for each song on their set list.  When I am performing I strive to recreate that ideal experience in front of the audience.  Some of the attributes of this experience include a perfect mix with rich bass, clear midrange and crisp highs.  My piano is perfectly balanced so that it is audible without being overbearing, and then prominent during solo moments.  My voice is loose, natural and free to express the music I have trapped in my mind.  The reverb is adding just the right amount of polish to pull everything together.  I could go on, but you get the point.

               To accomplish this I often try to bring a big sound system, my best microphone and keyboard and tracks that fill everything out.  I get to the gig as early as possible in order to have an ideal setup and a thorough sound check.  I’ve been to huge live concerts that look and sound like what I am aiming for. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible for me to recreate that experience for a whole show.  I don’t have the equipment that that those big crews own and I don’t have a sound engineer to ride faders and make adjustments during the show.  I am my own sound engineer, so I have to get the best mix possible in the sound check, leave it and hope that it is a good enough compromise for the changing elements of the show.  I don’t even have a band at the moment, so I have to rely on tracks and my own performance to create energy.  I try switching between the piano, singing and playing the saxophone to add variety and interest.  These changes, however, only add more opportunity for technical issues and distractions as a performer.

               I was leading worship yesterday as a guest minister at my parent’s church.  There was a time of prayer at the end of the service and I was at the keyboard providing background worship.  I had more “ideal moments” during that simple time of worship than I've had at my last five gigs.  There were no tracks, no subwoofers and no saxophones.  It was just my voice and a keyboard.  I felt so free.  I wasn’t worried about the mix, my voice, my playing, the tracks and all the other moving parts.  This experience reminded me that the most important element in recreating musical “moments” is my connection to moment.  I was so focused on the words of the songs I felt lead to sing and the atmosphere that was created by God’s manifest presence that everything else was wiped from my mind. 

               Unless you are a “big time” artists with a huge record deal, you probably face many of the issues I’ve mentioned in this post.  Hauling all of your gear alone, setting up alone, mixing your own sound check and providing all of the stage energy can be overwhelming.  As the worries pile up, the performance suffers.  Don’t be afraid to strip things down sometimes in order to free yourself from distractions and reconnect to the moment.  Remember, the moment is what the performance is all about.