• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Live music in concert halls. What's the point?

phion

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
58
Likes
100
So I went to a couple of jazz concerts in the barbican centre in London recently. One was the great Herbie Hancock and the other was Ibrahim Malouf last night, whom I didn't know much about and just went based on the recommendations of friends. I came pretty disappointed out of both and I blame SQ partially for that. In both cases I felt the fusion jazz they were playing was not fit for the poor venue accoustics and my seat, and I only received a mishmash of loud sound. In Malouf's case in particular all the edges of notes for brass instruments were being stifled pretty much. I get a much better experience at home with my mediocre setup.

I am a pretty big fan of Herbie Hancock and this was the first time I saw him live. It did seem like he was doing very interesting and innovative stuff, but the medium was obscuring it a bit.

Or am I just not getting it?
 

AudiOhm

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
406
Likes
409
Location
London, Ontario, Canada
As is home stereo equipment, not all concert venues are created equally...

Ohms
 
OP
P

phion

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
58
Likes
100
As is home stereo equipment, not all concert venues are created equally...

Ohms
So am I correct that Barbican is pretty bad? I always thought it must be good because it looks nice.
 

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,607
Likes
4,514
Location
Germany
So I went to a couple of jazz concerts in the barbican centre in London recently. One was the great Herbie Hancock and the other was Ibrahim Malouf last night, whom I didn't know much about and just went based on the recommendations of friends. I came pretty disappointed out of both and I blame SQ partially for that. In both cases I felt the fusion jazz they were playing was not fit for the poor venue accoustics and my seat, and I only received a mishmash of loud sound. In Malouf's case in particular all the edges of notes for brass instruments were being stifled pretty much. I get a much better experience at home with my mediocre setup.

I am a pretty big fan of Herbie Hancock and this was the first time I saw him live. It did seem like he was doing very interesting and innovative stuff, but the medium was obscuring it a bit.

Or am I just not getting it?

Having the same sound on a PA than a good home stereo is nearly impossible mission.
 

itz_all_about_the_music

Active Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2022
Messages
125
Likes
112
If I had a dime for every live concert I've attended that disappointed with uneven bass at my seat, poor mix at all seats, and too high ticket prices...

If I were a rich man
Ya ba dibba dibba dibba dibba dibba dibba dum
All day long, I'd biddy biddy bum
If I were a wealthy man
I wouldn't have to work hard
Ya ba dibba dibba dibba dibba dibba dibba dum
If I were a biddy biddy rich yidle-diddle-didle-didle man...
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,722
Likes
6,406
When an act on tour appears at a specific location, considerations other than sound will most likely determine a venue. Dates of facility availability, cost of procuring the place given how many tickets can reasonably be expected to be sold, how it fits in with the tour's travel schedule, performer accommodations and so forth.

The Barbicon Centre is known for its 'brutalist' architecture, cold concrete walls, and unfriendly maze like navigation (it says here...) From looking at the on-line pics, it's certainly a wonder of ugly modernist design; if the music sounded ugly within its ugly space, then... well, I guess it was doing its intended job. However, you'd think that a concert hall specifically designed for sound reproduction would be better at it, than that.

If I can generalize: small combo jazz is best served up at a small place with drinks, like the Village Vanguard. Big Band is meant for dancing, so plan accordingly. The fusion thing? John's original Mahavishnu Orchestra got a lot of mileage out of open air concerts, like the one in Central Park. That's probably best whenever you start to amplify your instruments. The downside is that whenever the lightening starts to hit, you want to make sure you're not under a tree, or otherwise exposed.

mo.jpg
 

Sgt. Ear Ache

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 18, 2019
Messages
1,894
Likes
4,150
Location
Winnipeg Canada
I haven't gone to many shows in the past 15 years or so. Used to go see live bands fairly regularly. But I can honestly say only a very small number of those actually had anything that I would characterize as "good sound." Loud? Oh yeah...but mostly too much bass, icepick treble, muddy...you go so you can say you've been. That's about it.

Whenever someone says the goal of a good HiFi system is to get that "live sound" I think "ewwww" lol
 

Katji

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
2,990
Likes
2,273
In both cases I felt the fusion jazz they were playing was not fit for the poor venue accoustics and my seat, and I only received a mishmash of loud sound. In Malouf's case in particular all the edges of notes for brass instruments were being stifled pretty much.
It means that the sound engineers were not fit. Or just unsuccessful, if the Barbican is really so bad.
 

Katji

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
2,990
Likes
2,273
I haven't gone to many shows in the past 15 years or so. Used to go see live bands fairly regularly. But I can honestly say only a very small number of those actually had anything that I would characterize as "good sound." Loud? Oh yeah...but mostly too much bass, icepick treble, muddy...you go so you can say you've been. That's about it.

Whenever someone says the goal of a good HiFi system is to get that "live sound" I think "ewwww" lol
^^Means audiophile needs to think again. It should be the other way around - if the sound guys not too constrained by venue/circumstances.

I think often the constraint is money, if not skills. It should be getting better now, with DSP, technology is much better.
Clubs, smaller venues, it's about money/investment by owner, definitely wanting good sound, not just money from booze sales.
 

PatF

Active Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2022
Messages
195
Likes
210
So I went to a couple of jazz concerts in the barbican centre in London recently. One was the great Herbie Hancock and the other was Ibrahim Malouf last night, whom I didn't know much about and just went based on the recommendations of friends. I came pretty disappointed out of both and I blame SQ partially for that. In both cases I felt the fusion jazz they were playing was not fit for the poor venue accoustics and my seat, and I only received a mishmash of loud sound. In Malouf's case in particular all the edges of notes for brass instruments were being stifled pretty much. I get a much better experience at home with my mediocre setup.

I am a pretty big fan of Herbie Hancock and this was the first time I saw him live. It did seem like he was doing very interesting and innovative stuff, but the medium was obscuring it a bit.

Or am I just not getting it?
It is many times big problem. Many places are not good for some kinds of music. In 20 years I was on 3 jazz concerts out of 50 or so that were organized in very good places. It was pure pleasure and there is no audio equipment which can come close to it.
 

nerdstrike

Active Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2021
Messages
257
Likes
309
Location
Cambs, UK
Of the jazz performances I've seen, they've almost always been too loud, but the best stuff happens live. It's fascinating watching good musicians try stuff on the spot and have it work out, but I've only really seen that in smaller venues.

The more complex the sound, the more harmful the acoustics can be. (Unless violins where more almost always sounds better).
 

PatF

Active Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2022
Messages
195
Likes
210
Of the jazz performances I've seen, they've almost always been too loud, but the best stuff happens live. It's fascinating watching good musicians try stuff on the spot and have it work out, but I've only really seen that in smaller venues.

The more complex the sound, the more harmful the acoustics can be. (Unless violins where more almost always sounds better).
Yea small spaces are usually more suited for jazz. I like also when jazz concert is in concert hall but without not necessary amplification (i.e. for brass).
 

Yasuo

Active Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
215
Likes
351
I'm not a fan of live music, I feel like music is the last thing you get when attending a live event. Sure, the place, people, vibes, emotion & feeling it's all there, making it a great experience, but the best sound is always found on a studio record. Exceptions being symphonic orchestras and choirs in cathedrals, at least in my experience.
 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,856
It depends on the music. Acoustic music (classical, for example) was developed around acoustic performances, and performers fashion a sound that works "out front" versus at the output point of the instrument. The acoustics of the room become part of the performance, quite intentionally. One symphony tuba player I know selected his instrument specifically because it worked in his orchestra's performance space. So, I don't want a dry performance of orchestra or large chamber music--I want to hear as much of the performance venue as was originally accommodated by the musicians.

Of course, audiences for such music generally at least try to keep their own noise down. For me, that upsets live classical performances more than anything--the noise made by other patrons.

Acoustic jazz needs a small venue, because the musicians craft their sound for a small venue, and with amplification writ small, so that it doesn't sound amplified. My favorite live jazz experience was hearing Maynard Ferguson at the 200-seat La Bastille club in Houston back in the 70's. But I also listened to Jim Cullum at The Landing in San Antonio, which was even smaller.

Just last year, I attended a concert by Rick Wakeman, playing piano and electronic keyboards. The venue was the good-sounding and fairly small Birchmere in Alexandria, VA. And everything was clear as a bell, except for the mid-range of the piano, which was boomy to the point of muddy distraction. That could easily have been avoided, in my view.

For rock music, however, the concert isn't for the listening, it's for the experience of seeing the group in person. I've never heard massively amplified rock music in a large venue that sounded as good as a studio recording.

I attend bluegrass festivals from time to time, and those are usually outdoors. Usually sound quite good even amplified. But orchestra concerts outdoors, even with amplification? Uh, no, unless there is a really effective shell around the stage. And when my quintet gets booked for an outdoor performance, I cringe--every mistake and imperfection suddenly becomes dominant, and I feel like I have to increase my volume four-fold (with really unhappy consequences).

So, it really depends on what the musician is trying to craft--orchestra musicians are specifically crafting sounds that work in a somewhat reverberant venue, while pop stars who optimize for their recordings are crafting sounds that work best in a dead studio environment. Studio recordings from them are always better acoustically than live concert recordings in my experience.

A special case is Philip Glass's ensemble, which is a mix of acoustic and electronic instruments, amplified very loudly. I heard them in a 700-seat auditorium at Southwestern University, which was life-changing, and at the 3000-seat University of Texas Performing Arts Center, which was flat by comparison. Their sound mixer sits on stage and is considered one of the performers.

I've also heard (for example) the Canadian Brass at everything from a 900-seat dead, deader, deadest high-school auditorium to an acoustically live 3000-seat concert hall, and they always sounded excellent with no amplification. But, again, the instruments were designed for interior spaces of varying resonance.

Rick "context is everything" Denney
 

Capitol C

Active Member
Joined
May 21, 2021
Messages
164
Likes
189
Location
Washington, DC
I'm not a fan of live music, I feel like music is the last thing you get when attending a live event. Sure, the place, people, vibes, emotion & feeling it's all there, making it a great experience, but the best sound is always found on a studio record. Exceptions being symphonic orchestras and choirs in cathedrals, at least in my experience.
I agree with your exceptions, and would add one more, small clubs. I heard Sony Terry and Brownie McGhee in a small place in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a long time ago, and it was great. Unfortunately, large-venue concerts are meant for people who want to see celebrities rather than listen to music. Against my better judgement, I' attended a concert at the Capital 1 Arena here in Washington, DC. The place is designed for basketball games, not concerts. I won't make that mistake again!
 

DVDdoug

Major Contributor
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
2,918
Likes
3,831
The acoustics CAN enhance the overall sound but yeah, the musical style has to "match" and bad acoustics can make it worse.

I've had my (large) speakers in a couple of "dance halls" for a couple DJ gigs and they sound MUCH better in a large room with some reverberation (with rock/dance/disco music) than in my living room.

I don't know anything about The Barbican Centre. A quick Google finds reports great acoustics and terrible acoustics.

I'm only familiar with one Herbie Hancock hit - Rockit? From what I remember isn't particularly dynamic. I might sound like a "mess" in a concert hall with "too much" reverberation. I'm pretty sure heavy metal would sound terrible in a concert hall. You need "space between notes" to hear the reverberation.

Generally I like any kind of live music but I have seen some rock shows in indoor sports arena's and gyms with bad acoustics (so much reverb that you couldn't hear the lyrics, and maybe some boomy low-frequency resonances). But once I saw a show in a community college gym that was similar to the average high school gym and the sound was fantastic! It was a long time ago and I think maybe it was "folk rock". It was loud, but not too loud or too "dense".

Outdoor rock seems pretty-much "foolproof" and some artificial reverb is often added but you don't get that wonderful natural reverb coming from all-around like a in a music hall.

I think I've only been in a real concert hall once, and it wasn't for a symphony. I went so some kind of Christmas musical performance at Davies Symphony Hall in San Francisco. But that was also many years ago and I don't remember much... I think there was a choir and some instrumentation but I don't remember a full orchestra. But I would have remembered if the sound was "bad".

And, I've been to some musicals in "big city" theaters. They aren't as reverberant as a concert hall but not acoustically dead either. The sound has ALWAYS been GREAT!

Live music is usually less compressed too (totally uncompressed if it's acoustic ;) ). There may be compression on the vocals but I assume it's rare to have a compressor at the mixer-output.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,209
Likes
7,588
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
I'd say operator error, mostly. Barbican Centre is a known quantity, many acts have passed through it successfully. If this concert sounded particularly bad there are any number of possibilities, but the most likely is that the sound crew didn't know what they were supposed to do. It's also possible you got a bad seat as regards the sonics. In any case, with "Live" performances, you get the bad along with the good. Sometimes recorded music is more satisfying.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,522
Likes
37,053
I'm not a fan of live music, I feel like music is the last thing you get when attending a live event. Sure, the place, people, vibes, emotion & feeling it's all there, making it a great experience, but the best sound is always found on a studio record. Exceptions being symphonic orchestras and choirs in cathedrals, at least in my experience.
Oh, I wholeheartedly DISAGREE!

Now Jazz, Jazz is for small clubs, smokey bars that sort of thing. If someone manages to make it good in a big venue they've done something. Plus it is all enhanced by being their with good friends, and sipping on drinks the whole atmosphere.

Chamber music is something like that too. It can be good in rather small university auditoriums or other small venues, but it isn't for the big Concert Hall.

Orchestras are for big concert halls. Bad halls can ruin even that.

Rock music some for big concert halls or stadiums if done well. Better for smaller halls and even large local clubs. It too even more so than Jazz is about the whole atmosphere of it all as a sensual experience.

Studio jazz can be very good, but second fiddle to the local jazz club. Same for all the other types of music. And of course good orchestral sound in your home is damn difficult to achieve even when the recording is good.

Then there are types of music for which there is no live reference as it is created synthetically in a studio for imaginary soundscapes. Recordings played over a good home system are the reference in such cases.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,209
Likes
7,588
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
(cough, cough!) ;) Jim
One of the virtues of recording classical music is being present at rehearsals, where one can choose an ideal seat and listen to the musicians without the sounds of an audience ignoring them. Also, walking around a harpsichord while it's being played---a kaleidoscope of sound.
 
Top Bottom