Jeff Ream Posted January 24, 2011 Author Share Posted January 24, 2011 A sound person on the field would have a far more difficult time knowing how things were blending up in the stands, which would possibly necessitate someone in the stands communicating with said sound person on the field. So, having someone control things from the stands therefore means a potential reduction in people who have something to do during a performance with electronics. And for those who don't like electronics to begin with, isn't that at least a small win, a step in the direction that they are espousing? no. because then in time, this opens pandoras box to allow staff to be involved in other ways. oh and last year you could communicate from the box to the field and that was supposed to be the miracle cure 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 A sound person on the field would have a far more difficult time knowing how things were blending up in the stands, which would possibly necessitate someone in the stands communicating with said sound person on the field. So, having someone control things from the stands therefore means a potential reduction in people who have something to do during a performance with electronics. And for those who don't like electronics to begin with, isn't that at least a small win, a step in the direction that they are espousing? Yea, I totally agree with you. My post was in response to someone mentioning that audio guy could shut off someone's mic if they were "playing badly". But I'm saying that it would be easier to see who is playing badly from an individual perspecitive on the field which means we had a higher risk of that happening with the sound guy on the field. Now that the sound guy is going to be in the stand it makes it harder to pic out individuals so that concern would be even less now. but yes, sound guy in the audience big win against balance issues as an ensemble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 no. because then in time, this opens pandoras box to allow staff to be involved in other ways. oh and last year you could communicate from the box to the field and that was supposed to be the miracle cure wait wait wait, no one said that any of these rule proposals are supposed to be "miracle cures". The idea behind all these rule proposals is "you don't know if you don't try." They tried something last year, that didn't work, this proposal effectively amends that old rule for this new one. Every single rule proposal is a guessing game, all the logical debate in the world probably won't be able to correctly predict the outcome. Oh yes, I know how much the doomsayers love to use the Pandora's Box analogy... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 24, 2011 Author Share Posted January 24, 2011 Yea, I totally agree with you. My post was in response to someone mentioning that audio guy could shut off someone's mic if they were "playing badly". But I'm saying that it would be easier to see who is playing badly from an individual perspecitive on the field which means we had a higher risk of that happening with the sound guy on the field. Now that the sound guy is going to be in the stand it makes it harder to pic out individuals so that concern would be even less now. but yes, sound guy in the audience big win against balance issues as an ensemble. yeah but last year the could call form up top to down below...and voila....oh wait, no improvement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 24, 2011 Author Share Posted January 24, 2011 wait wait wait, no one said that any of these rule proposals are supposed to be "miracle cures". The idea behind all these rule proposals is "you don't know if you don't try." They tried something last year, that didn't work, this proposal effectively amends that old rule for this new one. Every single rule proposal is a guessing game, all the logical debate in the world probably won't be able to correctly predict the outcome. Oh yes, I know how much the doomsayers love to use the Pandora's Box analogy... hey i rule nothing out anymore. I've seen too many loopholes get abused...the Jabba laugh thing with BD in 07, Coats and the Ipad usage last year...give an inch, someone will take a mile. I see it all the time in the band world too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) yeah but last year the could call form up top to down below...and voila....oh wait, no improvement In retrospect how efficient was that?: Box guy: Bring the Ensemble Down. Audio Guy: What? Box guy: bring the Ensemble Down NOW!! Audio Guy: Better? Box Guy: No, too low! ... More marimba. Audio Guy: ... Box Guy: More marim- ugh... never mind it passed. Edited January 25, 2011 by charlie1223 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daave Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I bit off topic, I know... but it's been a few days since they announced the new board members and it seems odd that it has been this long with no comments? Or did I miss it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Yea, I totally agree with you. My post was in response to someone mentioning that audio guy could shut off someone's mic if they were "playing badly". But I'm saying that it would be easier to see who is playing badly from an individual perspecitive on the field which means we had a higher risk of that happening with the sound guy on the field. Now that the sound guy is going to be in the stand it makes it harder to pic out individuals so that concern would be even less now. but yes, sound guy in the audience big win against balance issues as an ensemble. Sorry for any confusion. I misunderstood your point, but because of your clarification, I understand it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 amplification began in 2004. the sound guy came in 06 I meant to say the soundboard person, having been in the caucus session when that point came up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 In retrospect how efficient was that?: Box guy: Bring the Ensemble Down. Audio Guy: What? Box guy: bring the Ensemble Down NOW!! Audio Guy: Better? Box Guy: No, too low! ... More marimba. Audio Guy: ... Box Guy: More marim- ugh... never mind it passed. but we were told it'd be a fix...we had to have it. just like a sound guy. just like..... see my point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.