Our favorite Raleigh expatriate is making headlines for supposedly having a hissy fit on stage in Minneapolis last night.According to the Associated Press and NME, Adams complained about the sound quality throughout a show at Minneapolis' State Theatre last night, at one point moving two monitors, his mic and pedals.
At the end of his 70-minute set, Adams announced his last song and left without an encore, inspiring some "fans" to boo.
I'm sure if I'd been there I'd have a slightly different opinion, but the people writing these stories and making this news need to chill out. Poor sound can be one of the most frustrating things for a musician to deal with, something I'm sure the people who are complaining have never had to deal with.
5 comments:
any decent musician doesn't need much monitor, and if he's such a stickler for what he wants to hear, he needs to use in-ear monitors.
and if he has such problems with HIS OWN equipment and HIS OWN people, he should have dealt with it at sound check.
In short, his own inadequacies should not be taken out on the crowd that PAYS him to play. They did NOT pay good money for him to entertain his own whims and problems that he didn't deal with before the show.
I have to disagree. Any band playing a venue bigger than 100 or 150 capacity needs monitors, at least for vocals. Adams plays mostly large theatres, 2000+ capacity, and you have to have monitors. The on-stage volume of a band is usually quite loud and a singer needs to hear himself to make sure he's not singing poorly. Many artists don't like in-ears because it limits their ability to interact with the audience.
In the 60s The Beatles didn't have monitors during their stadium shows and hated that they couldn't hear themselves.
So on the technical side, I don't blame Ryan. On the other hand, he can be a whiny prima donna at times. He's been better since he's been sober, but he'll never be a shining example of a professional artist. He just doesn't have it in him. There should be a warning on every ticket sold to one of his shows.
not no monitors- very little.
and in ears do not limit interaction. They are ussually set up with 1 or 2 channels that are audience mics.
regardless, these were problems with his equipment and his people that he should have dealt with during sound check.
Unfortunately, you guys are missing the point because of the horribly inadequate reviews. I was at this show. And the Star Tribune in Minneapolis (who's awful review CNN.com ripped off and reposted) was horribly inaccurate. They likened this show to a "meltdown" he had in Minneapolis in 2003. To compare the two shows is ridiculous. In 2003, Adams got drunk, mumbled half his songs, would start a tune and stop halfway through, accidently bang his wine glass on the mic, etc. In other words, it was a trainwreck. The show last Thursday was nothing of the sort. He was visibly frustrated on stage, and he was a big, whiny baby in the end, but the songs they did play sounded quite good (something the newspapers forgot to mention). And the line that said "Many fans stood and booed" is complete BS. I hung around for fifteen minutes afterwards, hoping he'd come back out. Of course everyone was standing, like me, clapping and hoping to see an encore. We were all disappointed and a little pissed, but the only people who booed were a couple drunk fools in the balcony. I suppose they were drunk enough and loud enough to sound like "many" but good newspaper writers should know the difference. And I'm not sure about anyone else out there, but when I read a review, it usually includes some references to the actual music that was played. We get nothing from this account. At least they could acknowledge how tight the band was and how well they sounded on some of the songs. I could go into further details, but apparently people aren't interested in reading about that... It's common knowledge in the Twin Cities that the Star Trib's entertainment reporting is garbage, but for a heavy hitter like CNN to pick it up and regurgitate it is ridiculous. I was pissed at Adams for being such an unprofessional douche, but he looks like a class act compared these writers who write sensationalist garbage just to exploit Adams' past indiscretions and sell newspapers. Busch league, is what that is.
Wow, thanks for the comment, Brian. When I saw the story I was extremely skeptical, so it's interesting to hear your perspective having been there.
Post a Comment