This is my first attempt to write anything for LessWrong, so I'm going to start with something where I feel reasonably comfortable speaking from direct experience.
I'm a drummer for a comedy nu-metal band that often finds itself booked for venues that are unprepared for hosting a nu-metal band. For the purpose of smoothing out these gigs, I have started using low-volume cymbals.
Drummers tend to dislike low-volume cymbals, feeling they sound "thin" compared to real cymbals. When I looked around online for the conventional wisdom, I saw a number of people expressing the opinion that it's better to learn to play quietly rather than use low-volume cymbals at shows. Many expressed the view that low-volume cymbals are good for practicing, but inappropriate for performances.
In my experience, this is wrong and has maybe been unhelpfully moralized. Playing quietly is hard, so it's easy to criticize people for not wanting to practice it. But earlier in my life, I was a jazz drummer who played many gigs requiring controlled volume levels. This is appropriate for jazz, but inappropriate for most rock music, and definitely inappropriate for nu-metal. Low-volume cymbals are a better, more practical solution.
Rock is an amplified genre. This means that rock is loud by default if you're in the room where rock music is happening. But people tend to complain that the drums are too loud. They are colloquially correct, but technically incorrect. What's actually too loud are the cymbals. At nearly every rock show, everything else has to be amplified up to balance with the natural loudness of the cymbals. Any drum you want to actually hear generally needs to be amplified in a rock setting (except the metallic snare wires, which cut through more like cymbals than a drum).
This still doesn't address the suggestion to play quieter. But in my experience this doesn't really work. Good rock drummers already know to play with a softer touch on the cymbals than on the drums. This isn't really enough on its own to solve the basic imbalance. There's no volume level you can play at where rock music looks and sounds "right" without the cymbals being too loud.
My set of low-volume cymbals were very cheap and they work fine. They sound terrible when you're right on top of them. But they sound good in the audience. I'm pretty confident in this because I've loaned them out to other drummers and listened to them that way. I've also been approached a number of times by sound techs or other musicians who comment on the low-volume cymbals, expressing surprise at how well they work. Musicians love to sweat the details of their sound, but it's actually more important to get the big things right (like the overall volume level of the band) than it is to get the little things right (like having the absolute best possible cymbal sound).
We do like to use at least one, preferably two overhead mics when we play with low-volume cymbals, which lets the person at the mixer set the cymbals to whatever volume sounds best in that room. The biggest downside I've encountered so far is that the cheap stainless steel cymbals chew up my sticks a lot faster than bronze, but I may eventually fix this by spending more money (bronze low-volume cymbals exist, I just didn't want to spend the money for my initial experiment).
What's funny is that the result can sound strangely "produced." In many rock recordings, the cymbals are set much quieter than they would ever be if you were there in the room. Low-volume cymbals paired with ordinary drums jump straight to something more like a studio mix. And of course in larger venues, most of what you're hearing is picked up by mics anyway. Low-volume cymbals are useful if you're interested in having that type of control in smaller rooms.
I think part of why drummers have the wrong mindset here is that, because ordinary cymbals are so loud, it's very important that they sound as pleasant as possible. But if the cymbals are quieter, this doesn't matter as much. They just have to sound good enough that they aren't distracting from the rest of the show.
The big alternative I haven't mentioned yet is electronic drums. This is what I've seen other practical musicians using in similar situations. I've also done this, and it works. But I think acoustic drums are more exciting to play and to listen to, and I think it's interesting to be able to bring acoustic drums into smaller, less-prepared spaces.
This is my first attempt to write anything for LessWrong, so I'm going to start with something where I feel reasonably comfortable speaking from direct experience.
I'm a drummer for a comedy nu-metal band that often finds itself booked for venues that are unprepared for hosting a nu-metal band. For the purpose of smoothing out these gigs, I have started using low-volume cymbals.
Drummers tend to dislike low-volume cymbals, feeling they sound "thin" compared to real cymbals. When I looked around online for the conventional wisdom, I saw a number of people expressing the opinion that it's better to learn to play quietly rather than use low-volume cymbals at shows. Many expressed the view that low-volume cymbals are good for practicing, but inappropriate for performances.
In my experience, this is wrong and has maybe been unhelpfully moralized. Playing quietly is hard, so it's easy to criticize people for not wanting to practice it. But earlier in my life, I was a jazz drummer who played many gigs requiring controlled volume levels. This is appropriate for jazz, but inappropriate for most rock music, and definitely inappropriate for nu-metal. Low-volume cymbals are a better, more practical solution.
Rock is an amplified genre. This means that rock is loud by default if you're in the room where rock music is happening. But people tend to complain that the drums are too loud. They are colloquially correct, but technically incorrect. What's actually too loud are the cymbals. At nearly every rock show, everything else has to be amplified up to balance with the natural loudness of the cymbals. Any drum you want to actually hear generally needs to be amplified in a rock setting (except the metallic snare wires, which cut through more like cymbals than a drum).
This still doesn't address the suggestion to play quieter. But in my experience this doesn't really work. Good rock drummers already know to play with a softer touch on the cymbals than on the drums. This isn't really enough on its own to solve the basic imbalance. There's no volume level you can play at where rock music looks and sounds "right" without the cymbals being too loud.
My set of low-volume cymbals were very cheap and they work fine. They sound terrible when you're right on top of them. But they sound good in the audience. I'm pretty confident in this because I've loaned them out to other drummers and listened to them that way. I've also been approached a number of times by sound techs or other musicians who comment on the low-volume cymbals, expressing surprise at how well they work. Musicians love to sweat the details of their sound, but it's actually more important to get the big things right (like the overall volume level of the band) than it is to get the little things right (like having the absolute best possible cymbal sound).
We do like to use at least one, preferably two overhead mics when we play with low-volume cymbals, which lets the person at the mixer set the cymbals to whatever volume sounds best in that room. The biggest downside I've encountered so far is that the cheap stainless steel cymbals chew up my sticks a lot faster than bronze, but I may eventually fix this by spending more money (bronze low-volume cymbals exist, I just didn't want to spend the money for my initial experiment).
What's funny is that the result can sound strangely "produced." In many rock recordings, the cymbals are set much quieter than they would ever be if you were there in the room. Low-volume cymbals paired with ordinary drums jump straight to something more like a studio mix. And of course in larger venues, most of what you're hearing is picked up by mics anyway. Low-volume cymbals are useful if you're interested in having that type of control in smaller rooms.
I think part of why drummers have the wrong mindset here is that, because ordinary cymbals are so loud, it's very important that they sound as pleasant as possible. But if the cymbals are quieter, this doesn't matter as much. They just have to sound good enough that they aren't distracting from the rest of the show.
The big alternative I haven't mentioned yet is electronic drums. This is what I've seen other practical musicians using in similar situations. I've also done this, and it works. But I think acoustic drums are more exciting to play and to listen to, and I think it's interesting to be able to bring acoustic drums into smaller, less-prepared spaces.