Bobbyoso
Tele-Meister
I saw Hendrix at Woodstock, as well as at the Singer Bowl (aka Flushing Meadows tennis complex), and indoors a number of times, including at Philharmonic Hall in NY. Firstly, there must've been mics on those amps at Woodstock, because the sound on the DVD was obviously recorded via close micing. In other words, the mix is not that of a couple of FOH mics.
But I've heard lots of groups before and since that were louder/more painful/less well mixed, etc. Perhaps it was because even in the Woodstock era, Hendrix' music wasn't terribly dense--not a lot of competing keys, horns, etc. I do remember the Singer Bowl concert (I was 15 or so and really impressionable, so take this with a grain of salt) sounding like a record, nearly perfect. The sound was excellent, in the fourth row. Redding, Mitchell, Jimi's vocals--everything was there with good balance and excellent tone, nothing sounded unintentionally overdriven. Woodstock was a bit denser, but the sound wasn't bad there either, I was about 60 yd. out in center. Hendrix never had a loud voice, but I don't remember ever not being able to hear him singing at any of the concerts I attended, whatever he was singing through in those days (and I must confess, I wasn't nearly as aware of equipment then, so I don't know). Kinda surprising, when you think about it, given the state of live sound at the time.
Oddly enough, I've seen folks recently, with 40 years more knowledge and sound equipment, ultralinear PAs and whatnot at our disposal that sounded way worse, less balance, more spiky, too loud, you name it. Saw Van Halen for the last time about five years ago and it was just horribly mixed, and way too loud. Couldn't differentiate anything--sounded like I was listening through a pair of thick wool earmuffs, with a pair of conch shells strapped on top to add white noise. Of course, I think a lot of that was the giant oil drum of an arena they were playing in.
But there were plenty of times that happened back in the day--I remember seeing Cream in an arena with a revolving stage where it sounded like they were underwater, until the death beam of sound rotated around to be pointing at you. Then it was loud enough to dissolve cell walls, and I can't even imagine how much louder it was onstage, as I don't believe there was a lot of sound reinforcement elsewhere.
I agree that the Dead's wall of sound was superb, if reportedly a mite unwieldy to cart around. They also sounded fine when they were running their tiedyed Fenders, but their sound guys were always topnotch, and were responsible for a lot of the advances in live sound we all enjoy today. I also have no doubt that today's equipment can and does sound excellent when a) bands aren't playing in hockey rinks a large part of the time; b) play at a db level the venue can support without creating standing waves, reverberations and sympathetic vibrations of every solid object in the room; and c) they don't run their SS PAs into clip, which we all know sounds ummm suboptimal.
I'm sure the venue makes a lot of difference, and while live sound has a whole different set of challenges, I think that a bad acoustical situation indoors, coupled with too much db, can be worse. And one thing that has changed for the worse was that back then, you could see a lot of good bands in 2500-6000 seat theatres which were originally designed with some consideration for acoustics.
But it is funny--at least IMHO, major sound concert sound quality in general hasn't improved much, if at all, since the late 60s, while at least on the face of it, we have much better PAs, amps, mics, and the engineering advances of the past 40 years which should in theory have made it so much better.
But I've heard lots of groups before and since that were louder/more painful/less well mixed, etc. Perhaps it was because even in the Woodstock era, Hendrix' music wasn't terribly dense--not a lot of competing keys, horns, etc. I do remember the Singer Bowl concert (I was 15 or so and really impressionable, so take this with a grain of salt) sounding like a record, nearly perfect. The sound was excellent, in the fourth row. Redding, Mitchell, Jimi's vocals--everything was there with good balance and excellent tone, nothing sounded unintentionally overdriven. Woodstock was a bit denser, but the sound wasn't bad there either, I was about 60 yd. out in center. Hendrix never had a loud voice, but I don't remember ever not being able to hear him singing at any of the concerts I attended, whatever he was singing through in those days (and I must confess, I wasn't nearly as aware of equipment then, so I don't know). Kinda surprising, when you think about it, given the state of live sound at the time.
Oddly enough, I've seen folks recently, with 40 years more knowledge and sound equipment, ultralinear PAs and whatnot at our disposal that sounded way worse, less balance, more spiky, too loud, you name it. Saw Van Halen for the last time about five years ago and it was just horribly mixed, and way too loud. Couldn't differentiate anything--sounded like I was listening through a pair of thick wool earmuffs, with a pair of conch shells strapped on top to add white noise. Of course, I think a lot of that was the giant oil drum of an arena they were playing in.
But there were plenty of times that happened back in the day--I remember seeing Cream in an arena with a revolving stage where it sounded like they were underwater, until the death beam of sound rotated around to be pointing at you. Then it was loud enough to dissolve cell walls, and I can't even imagine how much louder it was onstage, as I don't believe there was a lot of sound reinforcement elsewhere.
I agree that the Dead's wall of sound was superb, if reportedly a mite unwieldy to cart around. They also sounded fine when they were running their tiedyed Fenders, but their sound guys were always topnotch, and were responsible for a lot of the advances in live sound we all enjoy today. I also have no doubt that today's equipment can and does sound excellent when a) bands aren't playing in hockey rinks a large part of the time; b) play at a db level the venue can support without creating standing waves, reverberations and sympathetic vibrations of every solid object in the room; and c) they don't run their SS PAs into clip, which we all know sounds ummm suboptimal.
I'm sure the venue makes a lot of difference, and while live sound has a whole different set of challenges, I think that a bad acoustical situation indoors, coupled with too much db, can be worse. And one thing that has changed for the worse was that back then, you could see a lot of good bands in 2500-6000 seat theatres which were originally designed with some consideration for acoustics.
But it is funny--at least IMHO, major sound concert sound quality in general hasn't improved much, if at all, since the late 60s, while at least on the face of it, we have much better PAs, amps, mics, and the engineering advances of the past 40 years which should in theory have made it so much better.
