FX in monitor mixes ??

This is my first post ever to this group, so hello everybody and thanks
in advance.

The question comes up now and again where musicians have asked me for
"some reverb" in their monitors. In the past and I've always just said:
"Uh, I don't think so." (I usually do try to be very accommodating.)

I'm talking bar-bands and mixing FOH.

So, is this ever done? Aren't monitors for monitoring? Do they need to
sound all soft and fuzzy and re-assuring? Do I put this in the category

i have had some fine vocalists want verb + delay in their mons claiming it
helps them sing better.
if the performer is happy the show is better and you get paid plus a bonus
plus future gigs.

Do I put this in the

of kick drum in vocal monitors on tiny stages in little clubs? Or is
this an area where I come up short?

the argumentative engineer (sound mixer in most cases) typically doesn't
want to be told what to do, and wants to feel like they know what's best for
all things involving their sound system, totally forgetting that the show is
not about the engineer and the artist just happens to be there, but its
about the artist and the engineer just happens to be there. who is the ME
to tell the artist what they are supposed to listen to?

if verb helps their performance give it to them!

OBTW I am, not nor have been a performer on stage.

Apart from the technical requirement to hear one's own voice or other
instrument and whatever else is needed for timing and pitching, the
main purpose of monitors is to give the artiste CONFIDENCE. In other
words, to make them feel at ease so they can give their best
performance. It is the monitor engineer's job to do whatever is
necessary to this end.

Like most forms of art, performing on stage is more than just a job -
it is partly an emotional experience and for some people quite a
stressful one. What makes them feel comfortable may seem irrational
to an outsider or may be technically "wrong".
An example of this might be using 2 or 3 wedge monitors around a
singer in circumstances where one would provide a cleaner and clearer
sound. Monitor engineering is at least as much about understanding
psychology as it is about technology, which is how some people are
able to have successful careers specialising as ME's for major acts.

Even at the bar-band level, you should try to understand and help the
player as much as you can. If the artiste feels better with monitor
reverb, then they are likely to be happier on stage and give a better
performance. It might not be what you would want if you were the
singer, but hey, everybody's different.

Being a good sound engineer is only partly about technical ability.
You need to do everything you reasonably can to help get the best
possible show, which can involve lot of "people skills".

So yes, if your console can provide some method of sending usable
reverb to that artiste's monitor, then you should do so if requested.
It's another good reason for bringing reverb back into channels
instead of console line inputs (the first is the ability to EQ the
return and if you haven't done this before, you should try it)

Points well taken, but - with all due respect, many performers gave great
performances in many venues before any of this stuff was invented. Why do
some people now say it's necessary? Could it be that equipt. manufacturers

It's not "necessary" and in a lot of cases it is less than desirable both
from an engineers point of view and from that of a performer who isn't
getting a clear picture of what they sound like but at the end of the day
the performer has to be comfortable on stage and if reverb helps them do
that then give them reverb. I've had some very experienced singers on here
recently and the amount of reverb they've wanted in their monitors has been
horrendous but if that is what they want then it is up to you as the
engineer to give it to them, at least up to the point where it starts to
cause feedback etc.

just want to sell you more gear? Could it be that lots of people - acts and
engineers alike - are addicted to technology?

Most of it is because what passes as talent and technique these days is
often not sustainable without technological crutches. Many 'singers' are
not actually singing - they are either crooning, talking with pitch, or
yelling.

All true, but it's still "art". Maybe not the kind of art you or I
would pay for, but in this case *they* are paying *me*

Mikey
Nova Music Productions

and much less important
george

You are right on all counts. Especially about the industry being
driven by manufacturers persuading people what they "must have". When
I started there was no digital audio, nearly no outboard gear,
limited board EQ (we learnt to select and move the mics to get the
sound we wanted) and definitely no onstage monitor console.

But my point is that if you do this for a living, you have to deal
with the situation as it is. Even if you work for an act regularly and
are trusted to give advice, it's still their own choice as to how they
want to work, and your job to satisfy their wishes.

In 30 years or so, I have worked on everything from solo acoustic
performers to heavy technology users, and from opera singers with an
orchestra, to heads of state making speeches of global significance.
I learned long ago that the job is about keeping the clients happy as
much as being technically competent. Whether or not I personally
approve of their style of performance, or their use/misuse of
technology, or their political agenda. This has worked for me, I''ve
earned my living from it, and very rarely been fired.

Some do, most don't.

I find it`s often singers who are less than selfconfident who ask for
verb in the vocal wedge - and it`s often quite well known performers.
If they ask for it, it`s professional to accommodate them if possible. I
usually do it by splitting the vocal mike into two channels.

If asked I will recommend no verb. I will explain that besides creating a
greater chance of feedback, it hides pitch flaws, which means the singer
won't always know if they're on pitch. I'm pretty adamant about it.
Frequently they'll give in. I'm pretty old school - I think monitors are
there to let performers hear timing and pitch and that should be all.

Agreed. I think 'verb in the monitors is self-defeating.
However, if that's what they want, they get it. It can
make my job a little tougher, as I have to try to
compensate for the muddling caused by the effect.
In most cases, it's rare to have *any* effects at
monitor world, so a request for reverb is moot, since there
ain't any available.
If it's on their rider, I make sure I have it.

Monitor 'verb and drummers wanting buttshakers are all just a purposeless
arms race to me. I know plenty of acts who play just fine without any
monitors.

Mikey
Nova Music Productions

Aften artists will ask for something 'on principle'. Often when you know
what they want will hinder rather than help, pretending to tweak something
will illicit an "Ah, that's much better" response.

As a performer, I can say that you're a sound guy we'd never call
back.

When I'm running sound, I understand that it's my responsibility to
make the performer's job easier. Not the other way around. Even if

Then as a performer and a soundy, you will know that what many performers
*think* they need will actually make the performer's job harder.

How, when, where, do (should) performers learn the difference
between what they need and what they *think* they need?

they need the roar of approval from the audience and the accolades of their
peers.
they want whatever it take to make that happen.

As far as I know, it's generally not the sound guy's place to
educate "the talent."

when you work repeatedly with the same talent and you show them a trick that
works and they adopt said trick he education process has taken place.
even a one time show the talent may come away with a little more then they
came in with. it depends on what you have, what you know, and what you do.

Seems many bar bands never learn and thus never grow.

I guess that's just the people I deal with ;-( .

It becomes a problem when what they ask for is something that you know will
cause actual problems and make it impossible for me to do my job.

" Could I have more Autotune on the monitors please, I can't seem to sing in
tune without it."

"Could I have more of that frequency that causes feedback please".

Later...

Ron Capik

learning and growing are part of life. some just do it slower.

I have to agree. If you're going to be a hassle with simple requests
then as a performer I'd rather just not have you there at all. I also
agree that reverb hides imperfections and probably shouldn't be used but
I won't say that to the performer, I'll instead tell their
manager/roadie/house engineer, they are more likely to be heard without
prejudice.

On the other hand I've mixed monitors for reggae, ska and hip hop acts
who will 'play' off the echoes and delays and that requires FX be in the
monitors. The best situation I ever dealt with was a vocalist with his
own rack of preamps and toys with a footswitch pad, I got a clean vocal
feed and an FX feed, both went in to the monitors and the vocalist
extensively played off the FX much to the delight of the crowd.

it's something I wouldn't usually do, I'll accommodate the artist
(short of something dangerous to performer, audience, equipment, or
myself). I know plenty of artists that perform better with verb/
buttshaker/delay/whatever.

the hard part is figuring out what they mean by "just a touch"