Grammy Whammy, or Why Does Live Music on TV Sound So Sucky These Days?

[Inky Goddess]

Hi, fellow slutz! I’m a newbie to posting, but I must admit to lurking about in Remote Possibilities and a few other forums for quite some time. I saw a couple of print articles recently that I think deserve a bit of recognition, and I’d like to know how others feel about the situation they discuss.

First of all, I am thrilled that somebody in the industry came flat out and said in print what’s been needing to be said about the pathetic quality of high profile, live, televised audio gigs. I refer to an honest and ballsy letter printed in Mix Magazine’s April 2004 issue. Gearslut Waylon refers to this letter in his posting in RP thread Jack Johnson gig w/ Aura Sonic. The editor at Mix chose to entitle it Grammy Whammy. In it, recording engineer Chris Arbisi poses the question, and I quote, “With all of the talent in the business and all the technology that you talk about and advertise, why can’t we get good sound from our audio guys who bring us the Super Bowl and the Grammys?”

Is that an em-eff-ing excellent question or what? God bless you, Chris, and the frequency you rode in on!

Specific points Arbisi mentions:
· Kid Rock’s missing vocal at the Super Bowl.
· Celine Dion’s dead mic at the Grammys, and
· Celine’s new mic, which generated feedback that screamed through her ear monitors and forced her to yank them out like they were on fire.

Speaking of missing vocals and pesky feedback…I detected a recent lapse of signal during Good Morning America’s live broadcast of Janet Jackson from Battery Park on March 31st of this year. Does anyone out there know what the hell she was singing about in that first number? And during the same broadcast, I found the feedback during Diane Sawyer’s interview of Jackson pretty amusing…so amusing that I started to giggle uncontrollably after about twenty seconds of it.

Another article addressing the sound at the Grammys appeared in the March 2004 issue of Prosound News. If you don’t actually read the article, the misleading title suggests that the production was of a stature that all others following should aspire to. In truth, all that the article Grammys Move Audio Up A Notch reports is the decision to add and the implementation of a 5.1 Dolby Pro Logic II feed, ensuring delivery of multi-channel surround audio to every household with a surround-sound system. The rest of it is name-dropping on behalf of the audio personnel involved and, of course, the gear used to accomplish the objective.

Leslie Ann Jones of the Recording Academy’s television committee is quoted in the Prosound article as stating, “The 5.1 HD broadcast was groundbreaking last year, and now we’re just trying to improve on that.” Ms. Jones’ choice of words is perfect—“just trying” is right on the money.

I remember once hearing Yoda tell Luke, “Do or do not; there is no ‘try’.”

The Prosound article includes a photo captioned, “It takes an army of pros behind the scenes to make the 46th Grammy Awards look and sound so good…,” and goes on to name the people in the photo. It reminded me of the Ten-Most-Wanted posters you see in the post office. Round Two of uncontrollable giggling ensued.

In Waylon’s Jack Johnson post he suggested, “Maybe if we can all rally and get an Aura Sonic truck and Crew on the grammys, we can avoid letters to Mix magazine like we seen this month...” This is not a bad idea at all. In all fairness though, as much as I am a huge fan of Steve Remote, I think we ought to rally for, no, we should demand at the Grammys any outfit that is a competent, proven, professional organization in upcoming years.

The Prosound article explicitly states that most of the audio personnel were returning veterans from previous Grammy shows. Judging only by what my amateur ears can discern, I say it’s time for the next watch to come on duty, because these veterans sound rather tired. Bedraggled, even. They may even be complacent because they somehow know they have the gig next year in the bag. If this is the case, why should they try harder? An infusion of a lot of new blood seems apropos if the Grammys want their fancy new gear and technology to sound like it’s being put to use by folks that know how to optimize it.

I get the impression that the infamous Army of Pros consists merely of “pro names” and “pro gear collectors.” How about a pro sound crew? Okay, semantically, they are pros, because they are getting paid for their services. In the real audio world, where heart, dedication, and most importantly EARS matter, I will be so bold as to state that the pros are still waiting for their shot at it.

Funny, as I sit here with these magazines splayed before me, I notice that below the above-referenced article in Prosound appears another discussing the lack of interest pro audio manufacturers showed for the marketing opportunity afforded by this year’s Grammy show. It states, “Unfortunately, the industry appears to be letting the [marketing] potential of multichannel audio broadcasting slip away, according to Randy Ezratty, president of Effanel Music and 5.1 sound designer for the Grammy Awards music show.” Later it says, “ ‘Some of the manufacturers lost interest,’ comments Ezratty, who appears stung by one particular manufacturer’s snub.” Arbisi has an explanation for the phenomenon. In the Mix letter, Arbisi describes Dion’s unpleasant ear monitor experience, and then states, “I’m sure that Shure won’t be talking about that in their next full page ad with Mix.”

I think that about sums it up…thanks in advance for your feedback, you slutz.

[NeoVXR]

I think it is because of the media oligopoly (in this kind of world wide shows) and OTOH some personnel may feel under-payed.
All must go quick quick quick...
Free Market competition does not work well, when relations between the big biz makers of such shows are so established.
Also, the CEOs seem to think, that people have better eyes than ears, so money is in the cameras, outfits, stage architectures and effects.
Synergy ist affected unhappily, when each wants to be the major player with the biggest credits and ads. There is more competition between these who are IN the show than between this years' staff and audio equipment manufacturers and anyone who hopes their chance to do it next year.
Ok, I admit I've seen the "Showgirls" film...

[Les Reverb]

Bonny Raitt sounded pretty good on Austin City Limits. So did David Byrne.

[Sofa King]

Originally posted by Inky Goddess

First of all, I am thrilled that somebody in the industry came flat out and said in print what’s been needing to be said about the pathetic quality of high profile, live, televised audio gigs. I refer to an honest and ballsy letter printed in Mix Magazine’s April 2004 issue. Gearslut Waylon refers to this letter in his posting in RP thread Jack Johnson gig w/ Aura Sonic. The editor at Mix chose to entitle it Grammy Whammy. In it, recording engineer Chris Arbisi poses the question, and I quote, “With all of the talent in the business and all the technology that you talk about and advertise, why can’t we get good sound from our audio guys who bring us the Super Bowl and the Grammys?”

Is that an em-eff-ing excellent question or what? God bless you, Chris, and the frequency you rode in on!

Specific points Arbisi mentions:
· Kid Rock’s missing vocal at the Super Bowl.
· Celine Dion’s dead mic at the Grammys, and
· Celine’s new mic, which generated feedback that screamed through her ear monitors and forced her to yank them out like they were on fire.

Hi,
Good post.
Although I haven’t worked on the specific shows you’ve mentioned, I do a pretty good deal of live recording for TV. My projects spend some time in post and in my studio being mixed before they end up on the air.

My reason for bringing that up is, I would not trade places with ANYONE mixing music for live broadcast.
Regardless of budget, and the best laid plans, things ALWAYS go wrong.


Why do things go wrong, or why in your words, do things sound so bad?
Again im speaking about my gigs, not the ones you’ve mentioned, but there are always budget concerns regardless of the size of the show.

The production is always trying to cut costs, that’s what they do.
"Lets cut one day of rehearsal, or one day of set up".
"Lets cut, these three positions"

Another reason for things to go wrong is during a shoot there may be a schedule change.
An act may get switched, or a number cut. This brings about “improvise” mode.
I’ve been bit by this scenario before.

To your point about the actual audio talent involved.
A few years ago, I’ had the opportunity to mix a few live things recorded by one of the companies you mentioned.
I remember I was pretty excited about mixing these tracks coming from this engineer and from this well respected company. But was not so blown away with what I ended up getting. It wasn’t terrible, but far from great.

Which brings me to your last question. “Why do these people get hired?”
I think it has to do with reputation, and experience. Which these guys have a great deal of. But from my experience, im typically hired by the “higher ups”. A producer liked the last show I did for him, so I get the call. Or some times it’s the Technical Director, or some times an Audio Supervisor.

To sum up, I’ve heard some great live things on TV, and some not so great. But I wouldn’t want to trade places with the guy doing the on air mix.

Oh ya, Ill put my vote in for Steve Remote and Aurasonic doing the next Grammy show! His gear and support are typically the only things I can count on when im doing my live recordings. He’s been 100% bullet proof on every dealing I’ve had with him.

Best


Sean

[Mick Crash]

Live music on TV generally sounds pretty good especially compared to 20 or 30 years ago. I think the problems mentioned are pretty much isolated incidents. There is certainly some of the NASA syndrome creeping into the sound industry as it has in every other industry. When production people put a show together and build in alot of backup in case of failure, there is much less chance of embarassing incidents. Of course this costs more money and accountants are in charge, not the engineers. Effanel is a quality outfit and I have worked with them on quite a few live broadcast shows at Sony Music Studios in NYC. They all went off without a hitch and sounded terrific. Most of the guest bands on Letterman, Leno, O'Brien and SNL also sound pretty damn good from an engineering point of view. Sure there's always room for improvement but to say that Live Music on TV sounds sucky is simply not true today.

[Coolstuff]

Inky,
Are you sure this is your first post? If so, you should consider writing as a sideline!

Though I have not worked the big award shows, I have done many other live entertainment, news and sports shows for the networks. I can tell you, these are not the "glory" shows one might think they are, and they are getting more difficult to work on every year.

First, they hire the "elite" crews and trucks which is not necessarily a bad thing since these guys are very experienced. However, they are working under ever tightening production schedules and budgets, increasingly more difficult union contracts, and in union halls as visitors (different unions). A few years back, the Academy yanked the production contract from the network and farmed it out to independent production companies. I won't comment on that move, but it does add another layer to manage.

Rehersals are short, often without the benefit of the actual artists except for camera blocking. There are sound checks, but often with stand-ins. During the one song sound check, the FOH, monitor, & recording mixers have to dial in and preset their mixes for each artist. As you know that's not a quick task. The mix engineers and A2's are often doing this while faxing out the system, dealing with feeds to videotape, transmission, intercom, etc.

Unfortunately, I don't think things are going to get better any time soon.

[Inky Goddess]

Wow, you guys are phenomenal.

Neo, thanks for your input. The spins you put on points you bring out are very insightful. More on your comments follows.

Les, I was referring to live telecasts, and Austin City Limits is a pre-recorded show that they do a fantastic job with. They ought to by now; I checked with PBS, and Austin City Limits is about to begin its thirtieth year. Thanks for taking the time to point this out, though.

I feel a need to clarify something for everyone, because the name of this thread is a bit misleading: I’m really addressing the problems we hear during the high-profile, big-name live events that use remote recording services, not shows like SNL or Emeril Live!. Everyone, I apologize for the unintentional verbal faux pas. Mick, I think this addresses your point about regularly scheduled live TV audio, and the shows you mentioned definitely got it goin’ on. I remember listening to some disappointing live sound on SNL years ago, when I was still “perky” and in my teens, but that is definitely not the case today. (See my profile for my actual elapsed time!) I’m assuming that these shows and others like them do not use remote recording services, but since I don’t actually know that, I invite you kind people to enlighten me. That’s what I love about this forum to begin with.

Mick, thanks for the point you made about pre-production in relation to budgeting. Coolstuff and Sofa/Sean also mention the budget factor. Neo points out something interesting about the allocation of funding as well. I had no idea that the bottom line would be such an inhibiting factor when it comes to insuring the sound quality of a live musical telecast! I guess it was naïve of me to assume that the focus would be on delivering great-quality sound, rather than on delivering something very good but not necessarily less-than-exceptional. The first rule of business is to supply the demand by satisfying the consumer; Neo’s correct in observing that the executives making decisions are factoring in a lot more than how perfect the talent sounds when they allocate resources for these shows.

Sofa/Sean & Coolstuff, thanks so much. The insider info you’ve provided that one can only get from actual experience is helping me understand how things that seem to be fundamental, no-brainer stuff can get flubbed.

Coolstuff, you definitely added a new facet to this inquisition of mine. I’m just wondering now, looking at that juicy and interesting factoid about the Academy pulling the network’s production contract, why they would do that, and if it conflicts with any fair trade/open market-type stuff. Neo’s point about free market competition failing when certain business relationships are established definitely hits the mark here. It seems that if they can come down on Bill Gates the way they did, there may be a way to show the Academy the error of their ways. Tell me, in this farming-out process, does the Academy open up any type of bidding to all you independent contractors? And before they pulled the network contract, how did the network hire a remote recording service?

Phew…what an education you guys are giving me! I have one more question though. In the cases of the missing vocals I mentioned, why didn’t the on-air mixers push those faders up a little bit? Since I’ve only ever watched engineers in studios and clubs work, I wonder what factors might legitimately inhibit an engineer from boosting that signal in an outdoor situation. I’m guessing maybe because the mic is not stationary, and perhaps wind or breezes distort the vocal signal? Please enlighten me more!

On a personal note…Thanks Coolstuff, for the compliment. As it turns out, I am a writer! If you need some done, e-mail me.

[Jay Kahrs]

Originally posted by Mick Crash
Live music on TV generally sounds pretty good especially compared to 20 or 30 years ago. I think the problems mentioned are pretty much isolated incidents.

Maybe, but they're pretty high profile "isolated" incidents. IMHO, there's no reason for a dead mic on a live show like that, not with all the preproduction that goes into a major event. These aren't one off club gigs where goofy things like that can happen from time to time if there was no soundcheck.

[NeoVXR]

I have another example:

some weeks ago, there was the FAME ACADEMY multinational contest. it took place in France.
the German candidates (some countries had a band, some single singers) went home with the back light. they were six, had a complex choreography, which always affects singing, and the microphone of the absolutely best singer of the band (warm, sonore voice) was DEAD! of course, the fans had all sorts of conspiration theories...

[Waylon]

Another issue is the fact the there were OBIVIOUS problems at the Grammeys, for instance, but you have Phill Ramone and Randy in PSW talkign about how the event was amazing and went off without a hitch. the real drag is that due to the "good ol boys club" nature o fthe industry, the same crew will be doing em next year for sure, and we will have the same problems. And that sucks.

[NYC Drew]

Originally posted by Waylon
Another issue is the fact the there were OBIVIOUS problems at the Grammeys, for instance, but you have Phill Ramone and Randy in PSW talkign about how the event was amazing and went off without a hitch. the real drag is that due to the "good ol boys club" nature o fthe industry, the same crew will be doing em next year for sure, and we will have the same problems. And that sucks.

Who are "Phil Ramone and Randy"?

[Inky Goddess]

I know you're just joking..."Who's Phil Ramone?" Indeed.

Randy is the owner of the remote company that did () the Grammys this year. Check out the articles we're talking about if you get a chance:

Prosound News, March 2004, Grammys Move Audio Up A Notch

Mix Magazine, April 2004, Letters to Mix Grammy Whammy

If you honestly don't know who Phil Ramone is, never confess it to anyone!!! Do a web search RIGHT NOW and have someone keep bringing you strong black coffee. You'll need it. Don't leave whatever haven you're in until you learn about Phil, or every engineer on the planet will be at your place in twelve hours to ridicule you in unison.

Like I said, I just know you were only joking...

[Waylon]

Originally posted by NYC Drew
Who are "Phil Ramone and Randy"?

I gotta admit, i am fresh off 3 hours at Chuckie Cheese with the kids.. and I just spent 5 munites thinking " man.... that is his name, right?"....

sheesh I am losing my mind....

[Fuzzy Logic]

the audio problems during the 2004 Grammys were pretty bad. the music mixes in general were some of the worst I ever heard.

...then I read this months EQ magazine and it made me sick. they talked about how amazing it looked and sounded. man, that was so far from the true.

anyone can remix a project til its right. only a few can pull off a live on the spot mix and it has nothing to do with the gear you have. think about it they had all the lastest gear available and it still sounded like sheat.

years from now when people go back to their favorite magazine archives, they will think it was the best ever and not what really happened.

this is why randy is a genius. he knows how to spin sheat into gold. prosound news, eq, surround, ect all printed totally positive articles about this years grammys. we would have read a much different article if the interviewers based their findings from what they saw and heard of aire rather then what the boy's club had to say about it. is it laziness or just complete propaganda???

even though the editor sugar coated his response, at least mix magazine printed the grammy whammy letter. that was totally cool.

[Inky Goddess]

...And the winner is...Fuzzy Logic, who goes home tonight with the Unofficial GS Whammy Award for "Perfect Delivery of The Million-Dollar Statement in a Remote Recording Forum":

Originally posted by Fuzzy Logic
the audio problems during the 2004 Grammys were pretty bad. the music mixes in general were some of the worst I ever heard.

This parallels my own ears' perception, but I didn't feel qualified to make that bold a statement. And Fuzzy, you definitely are the man, because this needed saying, too...

Originally posted by Fuzzy Logic
anyone can remix a project til its right. only a few can pull off a live on the spot mix and it has nothing to do with the gear you have. think about it they had all the lastest gear available and it still sounded like sheat.

This brings us full-circle...why is the sound on these shows so sheatty? The answer you guys have put forth is that there is an elite "boy's club" that holds a monopoly on the Grammys show. Since I live in America and I pay attention, this makes perfect sense.

What I wonder about is why you think these publications are favoring Ezratty, because it seems to me that they're probably kissing up to Mr. Ramone. This just seems more logical, since Ezratty is relatively a nobody in the scheme of it all. Prosound credits him as the 5.1 sound designer and provider of the mobile audio units. All this means is that he was the boy with the toys, and that he and/or his staff knows how to put Plug A into Jack B. He wasn't the one that actually assaulted us with those botched mixes.

There are three broadcast mixers implicated as the guilty parties in Prosound: Ed Greene, and his accomplices Jay Vicari and John Harris. The article states that Mr. Greene is the ringleader, reporting that he was the one who "created the Pro Logic II mix in addition to mixing the stereo broadcast audio."

Maybe this is a case of too many cooks. It's definitely a case of not enough ears. And whatever else is the case, I think you guys are giving Ezratty too much credit. The evidence seems to indicate that he performed well in the capacity for which he was commissioned (Plug A, Jack B). The two types of broadcast signal they set out to broadcast were indeed broadcast using the equipment he provided, which seems to indicate that he was successful. Unless he was also responsible for Celine's dead mic and blowing her eardrums out. Was somebody from Effanel supposed to test the mics before the show, and were they responsible for the monitor mix? If this is the case, maybe Ezratty didn't enjoy as much success as it seems.

I understand to a degree why you guys seem to resent Ezratty...he really likes to be in the spotlight, doesn't he? He's quoted everywhere, and he does come off like he's personally responsible for spinning miracles, when all he's done is provided "the latest gear available," as Fuzzy pointed out, and hooked it up correctly.

Leslie Ann Jones said in Prosound, "There's...a technical challenge involved..." I believe the "technical challenge" was already overcome in the labs that designed the gear they were using. It's not like anybody involved in the Grammy show went out and invented the lightbulb, they just applied the existing technology already created for the applications the production team used them for. I've read threads in a lot of the forums here and I'm sure that most of you pros could have done the same thing that Effanel did in this respect, and likely without standing on a self-erected pedestal and shining a spotight on yourselves.

Maybe the reason Ezratty is so prominent in these articles is that he was "willing to be at the forefront," as Jones so well stated. I bet Greene and Company are thankful for his lip-flapping; it takes the spotlight off of their sublime failure to deliver what we, the audience, rightly expected to hear: our favorite artists sounding exquisite in a show that the music industry itself put on. In this respect, I'd be inclined to agree with Fuzzy...

this is why randy is a genius. he knows how to spin sheat into gold.

I think this entire discussion needs to be taken up with Phil Ramone. If indeed there is some clandestine brotherhood involved, he is undoubtedly The Elder.

Let's see...Nobody is going to put Ramone on the spot; the magazines don't want their press privilages pulled, nor do they wish to upset those that pay the big bucks to advertise in them; Ezratty's out there doing his Rumplestiltskin-thing; the mixers have nothing to say for themselves; everyone else remains, in print, professionally vague.

I thought this was about the music, but it's really all about politics, isn't it? How utterly disappointing.

Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life in charge down here.

[Remoteness]

Hello Inky,

Welcome to the forum. Gee, for a newbie you sure stirred up some serious issues here.

This thread started out very interesting. An important topic to discuss. I thought it was about the quality of live music mixing during TV broadcasts. It’s turned into something completely different. There are many points that I agree with, some that I don’t agree with, but there are plenty of misconceived notions that should be addressed. Also, bashing an individual (or a few individuals) is a totally different story all together.

I also saw the various print articles in Mix, Prosound News and Surround. I haven’t read the EQ article yet, but it’s only time. I also have seen the Grammy broadcast. Well, I taped it and viewed it at my leisure. Well, in my opinion the articles don’t seem to fit what I heard. I call that kind of stuff “Historical Fiction”. Let’s take each case and break it down to something we can all understand. Let’s secure our observations and create some enlightenment to why these situations happened and how the audio community at large can make it better in the future.

I had a lot to say, and a fair amount of it wasn’t too positive. Your recent reply to Fuzzy’s post has changed my insight on all this. And for the better I may add. Diplomacy is the better way to attack these issues.

I too was happy to see Mix Magazine print Mr. Arbisi’s letter. To tell you the truth I was surprised that it was even printed. I wasn’t too surprised in the editor’s reply. On another note, talent and the best technology money can buy has nothing to do with good sound. It’s all about the feel. Some people love to work under adverse conditions. They even thrive on it. Others buckle under the pressure.

Everyone in those crews were very talented people. They are the who’s who in the our industry. Contrary to some belief, they didn’t get there just because of politics. They got there because they know what they’re doing and their clients love to work with them. Inky, people like to hire the folks they enjoy being with. It’s not only about how good you are, it’s also about how you fit in with the group. Should it be a factor in the hiring? Yes, I believe it should. Should it out weigh having bulletproof talent during mission critical live events? Well, the jury is still out for me. I’m torn on that subject. See I believe that the artist and their sound should always come first. Making them sound the best they can is priority in my book.

Problems will always occur. How can we circumvent potential difficulties? Extensive pre-production, plenty of backups and a quick response time to potential disasters are the way to go.

I would love to comment about the recent Good Morning America live broadcast of Janet Jackson from Battery Park, but I will leave that for another time.

I got to tell you, that Prosound News article pissed me off royally. If you hadn't heard that broadcast you would have never known there was even an issue about the sound. Perhaps the writers never listened to the live broadcast when they wrote the various articles.

I'll take great live sound over “a notch above the rest” any day. Look, things happen; problems occur, we all deal with that sort of stuff. They’re called lessons learned. So, why do we have to change history over it? Perhaps it’s better to look good then to feel good about it.

Inky, there’s nothing wrong about name-dropping (in an article) on behalf of the audio personnel involved and the gear used. We’re Gearslutz, this is our life and we love to talk and read about it.

NeoVXR,

I too believe that CEOs seem to think that people have better eyes than ears, but to our benefit, Effanel Music has helped to change that for the better. More attention has been given to the audio department on shows like the Grammys and the Superbowl. With the advent of HDTV and 5.1 (7.1 just around the corner) this is not the case anymore. Or that’s what we all like to believe. Anyone who as worked on a teleproduction or video shoot knows audio is second or third on the priority list. You know -- We all heard these two lines before, “Holding for lighting" "Waiting for audio”.

Now, what did you say about Showgirls? Hey, when you turn down the sound that film isn’t half-bad. Heh

Sean,

You do some awesome work, but we differ in one respect. I love mixing music for live broadcast, regardless of budget. Man, it great to take the bull by its horns and ride it all the way to the finish line, even under adverse conditions

In my opinion, things usually go bad when you think you got it all figured out. You should never approach a live broadcast thinking you’re more powerful then the “bull” you’re about to ride.

I believe budget concerns had nothing to do with the audio quality of the broadcasts mentioned in this thread. Think about it, the audio budgets for the Superbowl or the Grammys, even with cost cutting, must be mind-boggling. I bet their budgets can produce tons of typical live shows. I’ve seen and heard great work on budget’s a 10th the size of the biggies. How many two week setup, sound check, rehearsal and record gigs have we done? either way, I know folks that can smoke the big boys with same day, park; power; ESU; sound check; shoot and strike dates. You have to do the best you can with the budget and gear you have to work with. Period!

I too had the opportunity to mix a few live things recorded by one of the companies you mentioned and I wasn't blown away either. When my client asked them why it sounded so bad, they replied, and I’m paraphrasing, “your club sounds like crap and you need some serious acoustic treatment.” See I would have suggested moving the mics around first, but that’s just me. It was unfortunate for my client, but a fortunate circumstance for us. It’s now six years later and we still been recording and mixing all their live records. And I received a Grammy for one of those records to boot. God bless that remote recording company!

Thanks for the vote and kind words my friend. Believe it or not, I feel the same folks should do next years Grammys. Perhaps, they will learn from this and do a better job next time. Hopefully they will work at making history on air rather then fiction in print.

Micky,

You are right on point my man. Live music on TV does sound a lot better then 20 or 30 years ago.

Effanel Music is a quality outfit and I have heard some great sounding shows from the Sony Music Studios in NYC.

Jay,

You hit it right on the head. “There's no reason for a dead mic on a live show like that, not with all the pre-production that goes into a major event.” But, things happen. And that will never change. What should change is the time it took to make that mic work.

Fuzzy,

I hear you, but did you have to go there? A bit over the top, I’m afraid. I believe we can sort this stuff out with a little more respect.

Even though I didn’t read the latest EQ article, I empethise with your feelings.

It’s true, “Anyone can remix a project until its right, only a few can pull off a live on the spot mix and it has nothing to do with the gear you have.” Too bad you didn’t stop there.

I said the same thing to a friend of mine – “Years from now when people go back to their favorite magazine archives, they will think it was the best show ever”. That’s what I call “Historical Fiction”.

Inky,

There are no winners here. Fuzzy made some valid points, but I thought this thread was about “sucky TV sound”. It shouldn’t be about bashing any group or individual. Fuzzy’s perception maybe right, but IMO, the delivery was not.

If there is an elite "boy's club" that holds a monopoly on the Grammys or any show for that matter. I believe there are better ways to address the predicament. This forum is a very good start. Writing letters is another good approach. Bashing A list engineers and producers is not, but that’s just me. This is America and “Remote Possibilities” is still an open forum. I guess we all have our opinions.

A quick lesson, in the scheme of it all Mr. Ezratty is not a nobody. He is the key. Mr. Ramone has a long time relationship with him and they're happy campers. If they weren’t, we would be seeing another facility handling next year’s event.

Furthermore, Ed Greene, Jay Vicari and John Harris are giants in their fields. We should give them the respect they deserve despite how we may feel about them personally or for any audio or mix flaws that we heard. No one is perfect, especially in a live to air production.

Until someone comes forward and tells us what really happened, all bets are off. We can assume until we make an “ass” out of “u” and “me”. Will that make things better?

Look, Randy and I don’t "do lunch" or hang on the weekends. It’s far from that, so don’t think I’m just covering for my brother. He’s no brother. I just believe we should be fair and balanced.

I do agree that these articles created a different perspective on the show’s imperfections. It truly takes the spotlight off of their failure to deliver what we, the audience, rightly expected to hear. And as time passes we will only remember the articles we read. Now that’s real genius.

[Sofa King]

Originally posted by Remoteness

Sean,

You do some awesome work, but we differ in one respect. I love mixing music for live broadcast, regardless of budget. Man, it great to take the bull by its horns and ride it all the way to the finish line, even under adverse conditions

Steve,
You love mixing live cause your Steve Remote!!

Im just a studio rat that they let out of the dark a few times a year, to try and catch 10 lbs of shit ina 8 lb bag.
I only do these "live" shows cause the only things i do that are truly live, is the recording and the swearing.
I have the luxury of spending time in my happy place, turning apple into oranges.

My preparation, attention to detail and passion are the only things I can count on in these live situations.
I try to suround myself with like minded crew and vendors.
Again thats why however,whenever I can, I try to include our fearless moderator, Steve.

P.S.thanks for the kind words.

best


Sean

[dean the dream]

Inky,

I have known Steve for more than 30 years and his gigs with ABC have been pretty tight all the way around. Unfortunately, I have been traveling for the past 30 days and missed the JJ GMA. Last I heard, ASL was doing the gig. One thing for certain, I can't fathom how Aurasonic could possibly blow vocals, inclusive of feedback. Can you shed some more light on the situation?

Dean



"Speaking of missing vocals and pesky feedback…I detected a recent lapse of signal during Good Morning America’s live broadcast of Janet Jackson from Battery Park on March 31st of this year. Does anyone out there know what the hell she was singing about in that first number? And during the same broadcast, I found the feedback during Diane Sawyer’s interview of Jackson pretty amusing…so amusing that I started to giggle uncontrollably after about twenty seconds of it."

[Waylon]

Originally posted by dean the dream
Inky,

I have known Steve for more than 30 years and his gigs with ABC have been pretty tight all the way around. Unfortunately, I have been traveling for the past 30 days and missed the JJ GMA. Last I heard, ASL was doing the gig. One thing for certain, I can't fathom how Aurasonic could possibly blow vocals, inclusive of feedback. Can you shed some more light on the situation?

Dean



"Speaking of missing vocals and pesky feedback…I detected a recent lapse of signal during Good Morning America’s live broadcast of Janet Jackson from Battery Park on March 31st of this year. Does anyone out there know what the hell she was singing about in that first number? And during the same broadcast, I found the feedback during Diane Sawyer’s interview of Jackson pretty amusing…so amusing that I started to giggle uncontrollably after about twenty seconds of it."

I know for a fact that there was NOT an ASL truck on the Janet Jackson Gig. . I'll let Steve #1 take it further if nessacary.


Steve #2

[Inky Goddess]

Quickly, because I'm running out the door to work--

Dean...Steve Remote is like a demigod to me. There's like NO WAY that show could have had anything to do with him. Say it isn't so!!! I can't fathom how Aura-Sonic could possibly blow vocals, inclusive of feedback either!

I feel faint. Especially since the next thing i have to do is this ...

Mr. Remote...thanks for taking the time to address the things we're discussing here. I'm just an audio enthusiast who's trying to figure out why I have to be disappointed time after time when I check these shows out. I'm not an engineer, but I find these things totally distracting all the same. It must be insane for you guys when you hear them...how can you concentrate? I guess that's why you personally taped the Grammys and watched it at your leisure. How else could you ever get through it? But back to what you perceived as bashing, let me apologize if my comments come across that way.

The fact remains that some human being or beings are personally responsible for what we heard. We all agree that the sound was less than optimal. The articles I've read are my source of information regarding the names I used. And maybe I went too far with the "beam me up" remark, but as much of a true pioneer and legend Mr. Ramone is, he is also human. He was the man in charge of the audio production, and just like you and me and all of us, when something goes wrong at work, the person in charge is the one that we look to for answers as to why.

True, liking who you work with is important. Cooperation, like-mindedness, and familiarity expedite positive progress, no doubt...but I have a problem in general with the "big corporate mentality" that dictates what we Americans have to put up with; likewise, the other GS members that made comments here definitely alluded to this phenomenon leaching into what went/goes on at the Grammys. It seems that the persons making the decisions about who works these events have forgotten that they have an obligation to the viewers as well as the people they work with, and that there are other people that would be just as pleasant to work with that could perhaps do a better job! Loyalty is a great thing when it's appropriate, but it's unfair when A) it squeezes out fair competition, and B) causes quality to suffer. If you knew how many letters I've written to our president and my senators protesting the administration's environmental policies, you'd understand my passion regarding favoritism when it comes to making decisions that affect only a few positively while making the rest of us suffer.

Regarding your admonition, "in the scheme of it all Mr. Ezratty is not a nobody," I think the conclusion I came to about his company's part in the production was rather positive. The "nobody" reference was addressed to the fact that it seems he was nobody that should receive the blame for the lack of excellence in the audio we heard; so sorry if it came across any other way. You guys have, for the most part, said good things about him, and truly, your comments are most of what I know about the man. OTOH...The ability to "spin sheat into gold" is definitely a talent, and as a writer I concur with your collective observation that if you only read the articles and missed the show itself you'd have an entirely different perception of what went down that night. This can only benefit the "boy's club," and I don't think that's a good thing at all.

I really have to run, but I also want to say that if it really was you that did the Janet Jackson show...sorry I laughed at your feedback, but I can't take it back. It just struck me as ludicrous. I still can not believe that was your work, though. My brain is actually refusing to accept that input as fact. I guess everyone has bad days... Whatever the case, if it was you, you're still a demigod to me. One bad show in, what, thousands? just makes you part human, which is what demigods are anyway.

[Remoteness]

Inky, Inky, Inky,

What am I gonna do with you? Not only am I NOT a demigod, I don’t even play one on TV! If I haven’t communicated with you offline and knew where you were coming from I would have thought you were pulling my leg or at minimum trying to screw with my head.

Please… you got to take that back or at least reword it to something like, “Steve Remote is a nice guy.” Or maybe, “Steve Remote has a bunch of gear, and he still got an ear”. Don’t take this the wrong way, it’s just way too intense for me to handle. There is no way I can even fit into those shoes. I’ll except demidog but demigod is way too extreme. Come on, I thought this was about “sucky TV sound”.

I’ve been disappointed at times, but I also have been pleasantly surprised at the quality of some broadcast audio mixes today. At home, I have been personally recording many of the special events and other music related shows way before TiVo became popular. It keeps me up to date with what the other folks are doing. I’m always looking to improve on what I hear and what I can bring to the table. The Grammys is just one of the events that I record.

We are listening. Your words have not gone on deaf ears. That is why I believe this thread should be more on the original subject matter. It’s nice to hear or read nice things about us all, but will it help the greater cause? I don’t think so. Let’s leave that for the “boy’s club”. There are many outstanding recording & broadcasting engineers out there. The list goes on and on… Perhaps we should make a list of all our heroes and talk about what they have done to improve the quality of sound in general. Now that would be a great read.

It’s funny that you brought up the “how loyalty is a great thing when it's appropriate but is unfair when it squeezes out fair competition and causes quality to suffer.” That is how I felt about the Janet Jackson date last month. More about that later…

Loudist,

There have been good, bad and great live mixes throughout TV audio history. I’ve listened to a lot of SNL, Letterman and other reruns and it has varied over the years. IMO, the equipment used is only part of the sound differences.

I miss the sound and look of those lovely mics and large stands. Those beautiful mics are far from ugly in my eyes. If I get a chance to produce and/or direct more, you shall see a lot more of those suckers in my videos. If you want to talk about ugly – Ugly is the sound that small clip mics make when not properly adjusted. Man, that’s ugly to the bone.

Like I mentioned before, I record (pretty much) every important live music event on TV. It’s a hobby that’s kind-of-like a little homework for the ear and soul. I have three VCRs recording all my eye and ear food: favorite shows and special events. I only keep the stuff I really love or really hate.

I have to say, Letterman has been the most consistent of all the talk shows out there. For me, it’s the one to meet or beat. The audience sound is exceptional and the band mix never suffers because of it. They are never washed out by the audience mics like in some other shows. The cross fades from talk to band or in and out of commercials are perfect every time. The musical guests usually sound totally on point. It’s a real treat for my ears. The Late Show is an excellent demonstration of how to do it right. It’s the perfect blend of equipment and know-how. If there was a vote on which audio department to use –- These cats should do every big awards show on CBS!

What about that great sounding audience tone that seems to fill the listening room but doesn’t impair the music mix? Why doesn’t every show sound like that? I conclude most folks don’t bother to position and/or EQ the room mics properly. I have a killer technique to address this issue. I talked about it in one of the older threads on this forum. I have shown the technique to some of you. Steve Smith, did I lay this one on you when we were recording in St. Louis last year? I know I showed this to some of the folks that visited us during the Jack Johnson date in Boston.

It’s funny you mentioned LA’s older signal paths. I believe this is the key to many of the broadcast audio degradation we have. It may sound awesome in the truck but how does it sound at the other end of that feed? How can we be for sure that what we send out of the truck is indeed the same signal the listener will eventually get in their home without complete communicate with everyone down the line? There’s no real standard between the various networks out there. Have you ever clicked through your channel box and notice major differences between the networks? Here in Queens, NY we have Time Warner Cable of NYC. On this system, VH1 is left heavy; MTV is right heavy; The E! channel has an intermittent massive noise problem (sounds like a funky chip, bad connector, condensation or something to that effect) in the left channel that has been there for weeks upon weeks. Some channels are too low, some channels are too loud, I can go on and on… No one seems know or even care what to do about it. This is what we need to fix first! The multi-million dollar trucks and award winning crews out there are doing just fine. We need to fix and update the infrastructure ASAP if we want it to sound good in everyone’s home.

Your “towel over the TV” concept made me think of a saying I have repeated many times…
What do you have when there’s sound but no TV? …RADIO.
What do you have when there’s TV but no sound? …ABSOLUTLY NOTHING.
So why is the visual element (still) more important then the audio component? Picture with sound has been with us for a long time now, let’s make them equal in importance. Remember those words...
“Holding for lighting”. Waiting for audio”.
I’m afraid they will be spoken for a long time if we don’t do something about it soon.

Dean,

Thank you for your support. You are the man. I’m looking forward in hanging with you when you get back into town. I think you owe me a movie or two.

Yeah, we were booked for that Janet Jackson gig on GMA at least ten days before the event, but Janet’s engineer decided to pulled the plug on us hours before our load in, so he can bring in his buddies. I guess he figured it was better to bring in a known entity last minute then to chance it with a company he hasn’t worked with before.

The funny thing was we have done more then 50 live music mixes with ABC for a variety of TV shows and specials over the years. I believe my team and I have provided ABC with audio services that meet or exceed the industry’s standard of acceptable quality for broadcast audio, using the same well-maintained gear that we had prepped for two days and had at the ready for Ms. Jackson’s event. The folks at ABC also tried to convey this to Janet's engineer.

During the days leading up to the show, I had been communicating with all my regular contacts for music performances at ABC. I even got a call from ABC’s music mixer on Sunday morning before the show indicating “all systems go” for the date. The first clue I got that anything was amiss is when I received a call from the tech manager Monday evening around 7:00 p.m. while on another location recording a Jazz record with my smaller truck. Keep in mind our call time was at 8:00 a.m. the following day. He informed me that Janet’s engineer wanted to bring in his people for the show. He added that he had neither received word to release me, or that the other mobile facility had been hired; he was just giving me a heads-up on the situation. He went on to suggest that since we hadn’t been released, that Aura Sonic show up as planned. Can you believe it -- This all went down a mere thirteen hours or so before the set up day call time. I had to press all parties involved for a decision one way or the other. I didn’t want to show up and have a “battle of the trucks” situation ensue. I don’t know exactly what was said, but soon after I was phoned and informed that they spoke to Janet’s engineer and the consensus was to stick with Aura Sonic. Shortly after that call, the phone rang again and I was informed that the record company was guarantying the payment for the other mobile unit and I had been officially cancelled. From what I understand, Aura Sonic will get paid in full for the unfortunate screw up. My fingers are still crossed today.

I wish I had worked on that project for many reasons. Had I, Janet’s people would have seen for themselves why I believe that no other remote recording company puts as much pre-production work into EVERY show the way we do at Aura Sonic. Whether it’s a huge budget or not; international performers or a local band from down the block we give them all we got! My attention to detail is in fact my modus operandi, and I carry it through every phase of each unique project. In my honest opinion, when it comes to live on air music broadcasting, Aura Sonic has the highest rate of successful, perfectly balanced, high-quality sound than any other mobile recording service. And that ain’t HISTORICAL FICTION!

[Sofa King]

Originally posted by Remoteness


It’s funny you mentioned LA’s older signal paths. I believe this is the key to many of the broadcast audio degradation we have. It may sound awesome in the truck but how does it sound at the other end of that feed? How can we be for sure that what we send out of the truck is indeed the same signal the listener will eventually get in their home without complete communicate with everyone down the line? There’s no real standard between the various networks out there.

Steve
This is an issue I’ve tried to pin network people down on since I started doing my broadcast work. And sadly enough, at least with PBS, the folks I’ve talked to really cant tell me "exactly" what all goes on between the mix and folks homes.
As there are so many “ups and downs” of the signal.
Some shows are right off the satellite, some are downloaded, re recorded, then put back up.
How tight are all of those specs?

Dunno

I always print mixes to disc as we lay them back to picture.
And im always amazed at how radically different it sounds over the air as opposed to the disc.
So on a few shows I try and correct what im hearing on the broadcast during the mix.
But is what im hearing in the northeast, the same clumpy, dark mix folks are hearing elsewhere in the country.
This inconsistency has always driven me nuts.

Best


Sean

[Musiclab]

I think when its a large production with many acts anything can happen. What's really dumb is when you see Sheryl Crow on the Today Show and the mix sucks or Janet Jackson on Good Morning America. It's only one act and they should have had enough time so at least you can hear all of the instruments. I'm a studio dog so I don't have that much experience in this although I have done some gigs with the moderator of this forum. I can tell you one thing he's pretty amazing at, is that while everything is blowing up around him, he'll find a way to pull it off.

[NeoVXR]

couldn't digital signal transfer ensure that every station transmits the same sound? such a big show should be strong enough to ensure in the contracts, that sound must not be changed in the studios, but directly switched to the transmitters.
do you think that is a possible idea?
in other parts of the content business such procedure is not unusual.
as for nipplegate and such horrrible dangers, a commission could check for offending words at the place of the show.
do you think this is an approach?

[Inky Goddess]

i finally found out the real reason some guys get these gigs over others...

randy sure does have some puuuur-ty trucks, now don't he? maybe y'all need to hire yourselves some interior designers so you can do these gigs too. i think the new york times reported in its business section this morning that the small business administration has a special on loans to buy truck and trailer tapestries this week.

the horror...the horror. i knew i shoulda grabbed that barf bag from the plane.grudge

[Remoteness]

Inky Babe,

You may have a point. Many TV folks like to see good looking trucks on their productions. A big and shiny rig is the rule for most producers. It makes them feel like they're getting their money's worth. Other TV folks rather hire the crew that's going to make it happen for them under any circumstances, with or without the pretty vehicle. You're only as good as your last gig except when your publicist is doing their job for you.


NeoVXR,

Many network feeds are transferred digitally. I don't believe anyone is changing the sound in the studios, but something is certainly happening to change the sound of the feed. Maybe they should change the audio feed if it's not sounding right? Corrective adjustments may not be a bad idea.

As you may already know, the FCC has set 2006 as the final deadline for broadcasters to switch from SDTV to DTV and HDTV. There are tons of advantages to this move. Transmission distance and repeaters don't affect the quality of digitized video & audio. Since we pretty much use cameras, recorders, mixing consoles, switches, et cetera that operate in the digital format it's a no brainer. Fiber optics also plays a huge part in the transition to the new television standards. It provides the only real means of signal transport by offering the bandwidth necessary for these standards.

Multi-format Analog and Digital Video/Audio Network configurations exist, though the types of video signals, the number of audio channels, etc., vary from situation to situation. A state-of-the-art transport platform would allow for a number of video types and enough audio channels to support SAP and Surround Sound in addition to standard television signals. Many broadcasters have made the transition from analog to digital transmission from their towers. The broadcasters can send content from their broadcast studio directly to the transmission tower over fiber optic cable. At the tower site, an encoder compresses the signal before transmitting over the air.

[Waylon]

ok, I am just starting the Grammys here ( TIVO) ... lets see how we all feel about this year.....

[loudist]

Well I thought most of it was pretty good.

[Waylon]

It definately seems like someone really kicked butt after last years fiasco. The Broadcast mix was Solid here in standard def stereo, it did seem that there were issues as usual with the live sound ( 90% of the artists who wore inears seemed like they thought pitch was only for roofers...) but all in all a cool show, the Bonnie Raitt / Billy Preston thing rocked!

[loudist]

What about that Jlo piece of crap? When will her 15 minutes be over already?

Hopefully this Grammys mean that the 'urban' undertalent and boring overstay is finally over.

Is it just me or does Nora Jones get on everyone elses nerves?