|
|
|
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Post subject: Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:09 pm 
Here are some of my photos and a link to the rest: http://s19.photobucket.com/albums/b195/keithabbott/Eisley%202008/?albu mview=slideshow 
 _________________ http://www.myspace.com/keithabbott |
|
|
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 | Posts: 267 | Location: Fairfax, VA
|
|
   |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:33 am
Hi I'm a newbie here. Big fan of Eisley and The Myriad. We were upstairs on the rail. Great gig overall. I started another thread on the show, which I've migrated to this one. I hope nobody minds if I contribute some thoughts with a bit of a critique. I'll preface this by saying I am a sound man (both FOH and stage), so I know sound is in many ways a matter of preference, and I appreciate all that goes into it. Also, I love a big range of modern and classic rock styles. With that in mind . . . Envy Corps: Hadn't heard them before, but loved what they are trying to do musically and creatively. I heard a mix of 80's/90's infusion, anthems, Brit rock, emo, light on the mustard. Talented band. Lead vocals hard to follow but expressive. I will be checking them out. Lots of potential. Vedera: Liked 'em in '05 as Veda. Like 'em even more now. Tight. She has a great voice but could use a little restraint at times. Lead guitar and bass outstanding. Lover's Lie was best. I'm anxious to see how they progress to keep themselves distinctive. Sound check featured way cool bass riff from F'Mac. Myriad: OK so musical interests diversify among the masses. This is a band for those that like more complexity, prog, and a wall of sound. We were blown away by the musicianship, tightness, artistry, lead guitar, and most of the songs. "Forget What You Came For" has been a favorite of mine since the EP came out. The performance style goes along with the musical style, and is again a matter of preference. No fair to compare them with Coldplay, as the styles are much differrent. By the way, I agree with the earlier comment on a couple of minor mix issues: more lead vocal was needed at times. Now, on to Eisley. This is the 2nd time we've seen them at 9:30, and I kind of preferred the previous visit. Don't get me wrong, overall it was a good set. This band is unique and oh so talented. I was a little concerned early in the set that Sherri and Stacy seemed a bit disconnected from the crowd and were kind of rushing the set, but that all changed with the MSI (mic stand incident)  . Man that was a breath of fresh air, and seemed to change the dynamic of the set. The connection was there after that, and Sherri in particular was pouring herself into the set. Highlights included Mr. Pine (my favorite of the set), Combinations, both encore tunes, I Wasn't Prepared, and One Day I Slowly Floated Away. (I always like hearing things done a little different from the studio versions.)
So why did I prefer the previous visit? 1.) no Head Against the Sky or Just Like We Do. Hey the good news is they have so many good songs to play! 2.) This isn't meant to be a knock on the FOH sound guy, but all we could talk about on the way home was the mix, well mainly the reverb on the vocals. That had to be the wettest live vocal mix I've heard in a long time. I just don't understand why. The girls have mad vocal skills, but some of the beauty of their voices and harmonies (a hallmark of this band) got drowned. I'm all for vocal fx, but it was too much of a good thing. Having said that, the drums sounded awesome, if not a bit too much at times, and the mix was great on several songs, especially Mr. Pine and Combinations. Also, we kind of felt like the beautiful textures of Gee Whiz Sandra  were buried under the rhythm in the mix.
Again, sound is no easy task, and there was plenty to enjoy. Peace & blessings . . . _________________ Egg |
|
|
Joined: 21 Apr 2008 | Posts: 4 | Location: Stafford, VA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:09 am
Ha, I forgot about the problem with the mic stand. That was funny. And yeah, Head Against the Sky would have been cool. They played it when I saw them in Charlottesville and it was insanely good. But it was still a great set, like you said. Combinations + 9 other songs = awesome. |
|
|
Joined: 31 Dec 2007 | Posts: 335 | Location: Northern Virginia
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:10 pm
eggracer wrote: That had to be the wettest live vocal mix I've heard in a long time. I just don't understand why. The girls have mad vocal skills, but some of the beauty of their voices and harmonies (a hallmark of this band) got drowned. Ah! i wasn't at this show, but in Austin, and no one seems to pay attention to stuff like that. I found it very distracting. |
|
|
Joined: 12 Sep 2005 | Posts: 1182 | Location: Houston
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:14 pm
Hmm. I'm going to have to listen to their voices closely when I see them. _________________ My photography:www.jamiemphoto.com You can't spell awesome without emo...backwards! -Julie definingawesome (11:44:11 PM): Eisley shivers our timbers |
|
|
Joined: 15 Aug 2003 | Posts: 25185 | Location: East Texas
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:24 pm
yeah, its not like it sounds bad, it's just kind of unfortunate. i still think they're suited best to acoustic shows 
thanks for those awesome pics up there, by the way! |
|
|
Joined: 12 Sep 2005 | Posts: 1182 | Location: Houston
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:34 pm
I think the deal with the vocals were that the huge speakers were to the sides of the stage. I was riiiight up front between Chauntelle and Stacy and I could hear their voices, but not so very well, but since I knew what they were singing I didn't notice it as much as I did for the other bands. Does that make sense? My sister moved to the back before the last 4 songs, and she said it sounded amazing in the back, and I went back and agree. I think it may have had to do with where you were standing. Maybe. |
|
|
Joined: 10 Feb 2007 | Posts: 2907 | Location: Maryland
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:39 pm
yeah maybe cause i was right up in front and it wasn't the best. oh kylee i saw your pics they're good
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Sep 2005 | Posts: 1182 | Location: Houston
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:55 pm
princesstripandfall wrote: yeah maybe cause i was right up in front and it wasn't the best.
oh kylee i saw your pics they're good Yeah I was in the back and they sounded amazing. |
|
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 | Posts: 71 | Location: Fairfax, VA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:16 pm
princesstripandfall wrote: yeah maybe cause i was right up in front and it wasn't the best.
oh kylee i saw your pics they're good That could be why. Sometimes speakers are in silly places for people up front. ha. And thanks!  I have a few more. I only put the few that turned out semi-good. haha.
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Feb 2007 | Posts: 2907 | Location: Maryland
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:23 pm
Yeah, the sound almost always sucks at front. The middle and back are the place to be for sound. Which is one reason why I hang out in that area when I don't take pictures. I really can't stand almost anything about being up front, really. _________________ My photography:www.jamiemphoto.com You can't spell awesome without emo...backwards! -Julie definingawesome (11:44:11 PM): Eisley shivers our timbers |
|
|
Joined: 15 Aug 2003 | Posts: 25185 | Location: East Texas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:06 pm
First of all, thanks for posting the great pics! Since we like to hang out on the rail, we didn't get an up close view. Given how 9:30 has their speakers designed, it would almost always sound more balanced in the back than at the stage. (Typical for most rock concerts; I won't get into techical side of the reason for that lol). I won't completely discount our location as being a factor, but I don't think it it was location, or an issue of back vs. front. We were right in line with the top of the left line array, so we had a direct shot at the speakers. The other bands had drier (less fx) vocal mixes, imho, and the vocals were much cleaner when we saw Eisley in March of 2006. In fact, we were also upstairs for that gig. No, this was definitely a lot of fx on the vocals, some sort of extended sustain (can't put my finger on it) that reminded me of old-school guitar reverb, kind of echoey (is that a word?) without much delay. There were 4 of us, and we all thought the same thing. I'm just wondering if it's how they want the mix to sound. So is there this endless supply of Dupree sisters with great voices? Wow. As for being up front . . . I had one concert experience where it sounded awesome. If anybody here remembers a band called Adam Again, fronted by the late great Gene Eugene. It was at the Cornerstone festival in a big tent at like 1 AM. Speaking of which, an Adam Again song (It Is What It Is) was played between sets Monday night. There was also a 77's instrumental. To whoever made those selections, kudos, and thank you. _________________ Egg |
|
|
Joined: 21 Apr 2008 | Posts: 4 | Location: Stafford, VA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 4:59 am
The wetter vocals are, at least partially, a conscious decision, Ever since I've been working for Eisley, we've been working to get verb sounds that work with their voices, and get closer to the sounds of the album, However, the 9:30 club is a bit of a weird place to mix in, and it is very possible that my mix position fooled me into making it way wetter than it needed to be. (The previous time they had let me be on the floor, which is a little bit better place to mix from) The verb levels need to change from song to song, and all I can do is to listen at the mix position and guess where the verb level should be to sound right for everywhere else. Normally mix position is fairly representative of the room, but sometimes rooms are weird. The Social in Orlando is particularly odd in that respect; it will sound as dry as anything at mix position, and then insanely wet in the crowd. The 9:30 club does have an amazing system with an amazingly well treated room, but it definitely has its' quirks. The DuPree's really like verb, and write songs to sound good with lots of it. (generally. Some of Stacy's songs demand a much dryer sound) If you have heard any of the leaked demos, you have probably heard their voices significantly wetter than they are live. Quite a few things are different mix-wise on this tour than on any previous tours. We spent a lot of time rethinking the mixes. Me and Weston worked on drums sounds a decent bit, and for many songs the drums are now mixed louder than they were previously. To some extent, I'm trying to get a lot closer to the mixes for the individual songs on the albums, rather than setting one mix and having it be the same throughout the entire set. (If the song is driven by drums, they should be very forward in the mix; If it is driven by guitars, they should be more forward) It is definitely helpful to get other people's impressions of the sound, especially if I know where in the club you were standing for the show. Anyone should feel free to PM me or post critiques here, in order to help me make better mix decisions. (If people in other venues are thinking the vocals are too wet, it very possibly is not a venue/mix position issue.) (Also, Adam Again and 77's were me. I may have been right next to you at that Adam Again show. I was up way up front for their '97 show. The 77's instrumental is the primary song I use to set the house EQ. We all hear it so much that we're kind of sick of it by now. When John was line checking Stacy's vocal before the set, he was saying "Why are you playing this fricking song again" )
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 | Posts: 440 | Location: Indy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:39 am
I should know this, but can someone define "wetter"? Does that just mean more reverb? Or does it specifically mean a sound that is more muddy or mushy, and not as clear and distinct? |
|
|
Joined: 13 Jan 2008 | Posts: 475 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:48 am
Gosh, they need to keep hydrated in order to sing! That means they drink alot of water between songs. If a little spit flying at you while they're singing bothers you that much then you shouldn't stand so close to the stage! StuartBuck wrote: I should know this, but can someone define "wetter"? Does that just mean more reverb? Or does it specifically mean a sound that is more muddy or mushy, and not as clear and distinct? Yeah, more reverb/echo. Kappa962 wrote: The DuPree's really like verb, and write songs to sound good with lots of it. (generally. Some of Stacy's songs demand a much dryer sound) If you have heard any of the leaked demos, you have probably heard their voices significantly wetter than they are live. I'm listening to Ariticats now and it's got tons of echo/reverb and it sounds soo good. _________________ 
we're really not alone, we have each other |
|
|
Joined: 13 Jan 2007 | Posts: 2600 | Location: sitting in his nowhere land, TX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laughing City Forum Index -> eisleyBlog -> DC Show Review
Page 3 of 4 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
|
