Messageboard

About Jo-B Sebsky from United States:

Re: Debacle humor (70,790) (70,792) by Jo-B Sebsky from United States Why do you think she doesn't seem to wear anything but bathing suits anymore? Emancipated thighs is glorious, rich lows. (Wednesday 4 January 2017; 22:22)

Re: Example of delay (Michael Bolton National Anthem) (70,716) (70,734) by Jo-B Sebsky from United States No problem. Again the issue here isn't hearing the music, it's hearing herself sing. Monitors are called monitors because they're used to monitor input, for singers it's a life line because on loud stages with huge speakers you can't hear yourself singing, the in ear monitors play your mic feed back to you in real time. Without them it would be like speaking and only hearing what you said 2 seconds later. This is why her adlibs were relatively on pitch and relatively on time. Anything longer than a short phrase would have messed her up because she'd be singing one thing and hearing what she had sung a second ago. It'd be like trying to sing a song while someone else is singing the same song a second late. She'd also have no confirmation of what she had actually sung until it reached her a second later. This is also why the dancers had no trouble staying on time, because they can hear the music. (Wednesday 4 January 2017; 4:18)

Re: Example of delay (Michael Bolton National Anthem) (70,694) (70,712) by Jo-B Sebsky from United States On a smaller stage and to a smaller crowd she might have been able to get away with just using her own ears, but in conditions like these you cannot hear yourself at all over the crowd and the music from the speakers, so her only indication on whether she's singing the right things is the delayed audio she gets when she hears the audience speakers. She basically was singing with deaf ears. I'd liken it to being at a noisy club where you can't even hear your own voice and end up having to yell to communicate with your friends. I've been on much smaller stages and if my monitors weren't working it was a nightmare. Even the hosts were having a hard time hearing each other, it was a mess. (Tuesday 3 January 2017; 16:48)

Re: Something in the buttermilk ain't clean (70,673) (70,680) by Jo-B Sebsky from United States It's called the voice jammer effect. On a stage that big and among a crowd that large singing without a monitor is impossible. Without the monitor, you sing into the microphone and hear your voice back delayed by a few milliseconds (depending on the how large the venue is) because your only audio reference is the speakers facing the audience. She was able to sing small phrases but if she sang anything longer the delayed audio reflections would have messed her up and she'd immediately have issues continuing. The dancers, on the other hand, don't need monitors because they aren't contributing sonically. This means they can react to the music without worrying about losing their timing because they don't have to worry about delay. (Tuesday 3 January 2017; 1:12)