The low thrum of a bass guitar reverberates through the walls of an intimate venue, a precursor to the energy that will soon flood the room. This is the moment when musicians, technicians, and even the scattered handful of early attendees gather for the crucial soundcheck. While it might seem like just a routine formality, the way this ritual unfolds can set the tone for the entire night. In small venues, where the audience is close enough to see the sweat on a performer’s brow, soundcheck etiquette can make or break the experience.
Two primary approaches often emerge during soundchecks: the collaborative method and the solo run-through. Each has its own set of benefits and drawbacks.
The collaborative method is characterized by a team-oriented approach where band members and audio engineers work together. This style promotes open dialogue, with musicians expressing their preferences and engineers fine-tuning settings based on real-time feedback. The atmosphere tends to be vibrant and spontaneous, which can be particularly advantageous in smaller, more intimate settings where audience engagement is heightened. When the musicians feel involved, they often exude a greater sense of confidence and energy when performing, which can resonate with the audience.
However, this approach can lead to a bit of chaos. Without clear leadership, time can slip away, sometimes resulting in soundchecks stretching well beyond the ideal 30 minutes. A musician might keep asking for just a little more reverb, while another wants their guitar volume cranked up. At some point, what started as a constructive collaboration can devolve into a cacophony of competing desires. This can lead to frustration on the part of the sound engineer, who may feel caught in the middle. For venues operating on tight schedules, this sort of disorganization can result in missing out on valuable time to prepare, leaving both the staff and audience feeling tense before the show even begins.
On the other hand, the solo run-through method is a more streamlined approach, where one or two key band members take charge of the soundcheck, often with the sound engineer. Here, the lead vocalist or guitarist may dictate the settings, allowing for a clearer direction and a quicker process. This approach can be especially effective in a small venue where the sound engineer is already familiar with the nuances of the space. In fact, studies suggest that about 65% of sound engineers prefer this method for its efficiency, as it allows them to manage technical aspects without constant back and forth.
But while this method can lead to a crisp and clean soundcheck, it can also alienate other band members. The soloists might feel empowered, but the rhythm section or backup singers could feel sidelined, leading to discontent brewing just below the surface. When only a couple of voices are heard, the overall sound might lack the cohesion that a more collective approach would provide. the audience might pick up on this dynamic during the performance, sensing a disconnect between the players.
There’s also a financial aspect to consider when evaluating these two methods. While the collaborative method might take longer, leading to potential overtime fees for sound technicians–often around $25 to $50 per hour–it can also yield a richer, more engaging performance that justifies the expense. Conversely, the solo run-through may save time and thus money, but if it results in a lackluster performance, the venue could miss out on future ticket sales and merchandise revenue. A remarkable show in a small venue can lead to a spike in merchandise sales, sometimes by as much as 20% over a lackluster performance.
Most small venues operate on tight margins, so the choice of soundcheck style can impact not just the immediate show, but the overall relationship with the band and audience. A well-executed collaborative soundcheck might lead to a more successful night that could result in return gigs, while the efficiency of a solo run-through might be tempting but can risk future opportunities if the audience isn’t captivated.
As the soundcheck progresses, another layer of etiquette comes into play: respect for the space. In small venues, the physical proximity to the audience means that every sound and every movement carries weight. Musicians should be mindful of their volume levels, particularly during soundchecks, as excessive noise can disrupt conversations among patrons or even scare off potential attendees who are just stopping by. A 2018 report indicated that nearly 37% of small venue goers prefer to engage in conversation during soundchecks rather than be bombarded with loud sounds, underscoring the importance of maintaining a balance.
One might wonder if a hybrid approach could be the way forward–combining the efficiency of a solo run-through with the inclusivity of a collaborative method. Perhaps the lead singer could take the reins initially, then invite the rest of the band to weigh in, creating a synergy that allows everyone to contribute without dragging out the process. It’s a strategy that could foster both cohesion and efficiency, ensuring the final soundcheck is productive without alienating any band members.
Ultimately, the choice between collaborative and solo run-through approaches comes down to the specific dynamics of the band and the venue. Each method has its merits, but as with most things in life, the best results often come from a balance between structure and creativity. Soundchecks may seem like a mundane task, but in the vibrant world of small venues, they play a crucial role in laying the groundwork for unforgettable performances.
“Soundchecks are where the magic begins.”
As the bass continues to thrum, the clock ticks down towards showtime, and it’s clear: the soundcheck is not just a technical necessity, but a vital component of the live music experience.
