Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Was it showmanship?
Or was is due to a limitation of the gear of the era?  Not enough channels?  Poor monitors?  PA system limitation?
Did they hear each other's harminies better?  Why did the beatles, and other bands of the day tend to all stand around a single microphone?
We just don't see this much anymore. I've heard theories, but does anyone really know why?

[Bobber]

Channels? Monitors? PA system? Bear in mind that The Beatles hadn't such equipment. So I guess it was partly showmanship (shaking their heads together) and partly to get their harmonies better if they could hear anything at all.

[pc31]

many people don't know this but john and paul were siamese twins and only got seperated in 1967...they had to share don't you see???

Well I wondered about monitors, But No PA system?  I take it they plugged microphones into guitar amps?
So the reason would indeed simply be that sharing was a neccessity, because it was the only way they could hear each other?

[fendertele]

maybe they shared with the belief theyre voices would combine and sound better before entering the mic  and make a greater output, rather than combining 2 seperate vocals from seperate mics and comining them at the other end.


 a bit like the guitar dilemma when setting up pedals, you would think it wouldnt matter whcih order you put the but it does.

Well, again, most all groups from that era and before tended to crowd around the mic...think of The Andrews Sisters!
The response that they had no PA system begs the question...what was the mic for??  It had to plug into something.

I'm trying to determine if the practice of sharing the mic was dictated by the gear of the era, or, if it was a choice due to showmanship and or a belief / fact that they sounded better.

It may be a combination of choice and gear, but you just dont see the practice as much these days.

[HeatherBoo]

Seems like alot of bands shared mic's back in the day...I could be wrong though.

[fendertele]

The response that they had no PA system begs the question...what was the mic for??  It had to plug into something.

We'll it just meant they never had monitors that the band nowadays have to hear themselves, if you look at a stage all the musicians have there own set of speakers in front of them pointing to wards them so they can hear what the crowd hear from the bigger speakers.

But back then the beatles voices and instruments would go through the mics and be outputed to the crowd and they would have to listen hard to there amps and the output for the crowd if they could but most of the time the crowd were too loud and thats why the ysaid the couldnt hear themselves and had to hope they were intime by judging the beat off of the way each other bounced along to the song to keep in time.

So chances are that the sharing of mics was to make sure they kept in key and that one wasnt out of key with the other, also when the song starts there might only be John singing the verse and Paul needing to come into the chorus might neeed to hear John but with the crowd being so loud has to be close by to judge it.?

[alexis]

I always figured they couldn't afford more mics in the early days, and just kept up the practice later on?

[aspinall_lover]

Channels? Monitors? PA system? Bear in mind that The Beatles hadn't such equipment. So I guess it was partly showmanship (shaking their heads together) and partly to get their harmonies better if they could hear anything at all.

^^^^^^I agree with you Bobber.  It looked alot better with them sharing the mike.

[harihead]

I'm sure Bobber and Fendertele are right, but I think there might have been a little tease there for the girls, too. That close proximity thing is sexy!

[fendertele]

I'm sure Bobber and Fendertele are right, but I think there might have been a little tease there for the girls, too. That close proximity thing is sexy!

is it now (eyebrows)(eyebrows)(eyebrows) might have to incorporate it into some of our gigs aswell then  

Welcome back Hari long time no see

[Casbah]

I've always thought that the set up was due to only having 2 true lead singers in the band. I don't know that Georges singing role warranted his own mic, and from a performance standpoint, mics just get in the way when you don't need em.  


Its a good question ...

[cubanheel]

I think Paul's left-handed playing made it easier for the Beatles than other bands, no bashing guitars together! And I think they were very aware of the visual side of performing, after all the 'mach show' of Hamburg. May be a chicken and egg situation  -  which came first, the single microphone or the visual movement of the rush together! Mmm all hot under the collar ....

[harihead]

Thanks, Fendertele! I've been working two jobs, and have computer burnout by the time I get home. But I like to pop in when I can!

Yes, incorporate it into your act. You men need to know what the ladies like-- then we'll see more of it.

[Bobber]

Yes, incorporate it into your act. You men need to know what the ladies like-- then we'll see more of it.

I wish it worked vice versa as well.  

[harihead]

I think it's a lot easier for women. Dave Barry (a comedy writer here) said, basically, "Women spend all this time trying to figure out how to please a man. Here's how it really works: she just needs to show up. There, done!"

Whereas for a man to be sexy and not be a jerk is a lot harder line to walk, I think.