Jump to content

How much do we need to know


Jeff Wexler

Recommended Posts

I remember when I started out it seemed clear to me that before I would be comfortable mixing I would need to know how everything works on the Nagra III. I also knew that I would not have to become a full scale engineer to master the machine. Within a few months I did in fact learn almost everything needed to know about the Nagra. Cut to today: so many devices, so little time, so many demands from production.

I get frequent questions, almost on weekly basis, from other sound mixers using equipment that is either the same or similar to equipment I am using. Sometimes these questions are really fundamental --- not about quirky undiscovered features or bugs or exotic non-standard uses of the machine, but rather simple, basic questions. I am struck by the fact that many mixers these days are pushed into doing jobs with equipment, primarily file-based recorders, with which they are not truly up to steam. I personally would find this very scary and would probably pass on a job until such time as I reallly felt comfortable with the machine.

The question, how much do we need to know (to do our jobs professionally) and the corollary, how do we larn these things, is a pressing issue.

A fundamental understanding of the essential operation that all these recorders share is a good starting point. Witness the confusion, even amongst people who have been using any of the various file based recorders, about .wav, .bwf, what does the file extension mean, why did it change, etc. With the Nagra we had to at least have a working knowledge of the characteristics of TAPE, tape path, heads, alignment etc. Even if we didn't know how to align the azimuth we did need to know what azimuth is and its importance. With file based (non tape) machines we need to understand the FILE. It is not sufficient to just be told what button to push or how a machine's settings should look --- there needs to be a little bit more understanding.

I guess this is part of the goal of the Education Committee at our Union but I think independent of the Union, film schools, user groups and so on, it is incumbent on all of us to learn as much as we can about ALL of the equipment we use.

more on this later...

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just wondering how much of this is due to the fact that (for instance) a person has an interest in a particular field (say, production sound mixing) along with a background in a related field (say, electrical engineering / electronics)... and let's say that person decided really early on that the electronics and engineering was not really his/her cup-o-tea -- right out of electronics school, for instance -- and that production sound was really more appealing.  This person goes out with the little capital that's left in the ol' bank account and purchases a small ENG package.

With the basic understanding this person has, let's say he/she is able to land and successfully complete a job or two with decent results and then land a boom gig or two with a mixer here, a mixer there -- anyone willing to give the greenhorn a shot.  This person asks enough questions, and keeps his/her eyes (and ears)  : ) open, gleans enough basic knowledge of set protocol, including the mixer's routine, to not only avoid being fired, but actually land a mixing job on a really low budget feature.  Let's say this produces mixed results (pun intended) but the producers are happy enough, and off we go -- now we're a production sound mixer!  We're green, the boom op's greener, but hey, the whole production is, so we fit right in.

My point is, it seems there are quite a few people out there pulling the wool over productions' eyes simply because they can, and hey, for 4 or 5 beans a day, why not?  "I'll just keep sticking my neck out there, learn what I can, hopefully not get in too deep..."  and before you know it, I'm a production sound mixer with several credits, a few years of experience.  

Isn't this 'learn as you go' method (in a way) the entrepreneurial vessle by which many (now veteran) sound mixers chissled out careers for themselves?  At some point you just dive in and hope you come up paddling. I'm not sure these mixers are pushed into certain jobs so much as they're jumping at the chance -- that's all I'm saying.  It's a paying gig, I need to make a living, I better not screw this up... "hey, I know, I'll just field my questions on the JWSound forum and RAMPS -- someone will give me the answers I need."

I think the bottom line is that if we really sit back and examine what it is we do for a living, and what our positions generally garnish in terms of cash flow -- it's a pretty cool living in a really dorky kind of way.  No wonder people are fast-tracking it into positions for which they lack knowledge -- sink or swim.

So, do we encourage it?  Do we throw out the occasional bouy and perpetuate the entreprenurial spirit... or do we turn away and shrug in the spirit of competition or apathy?  My guess is that no matter how basic the question might be, you're compelled to answer it -- you want to see these people succeed -- it's in your blood, and you recognize it in theirs.  You also recognize that, like it or not, in this technologically exploding world, more and more mixers ARE finding themselves in a bit over their heads and need a place to find answers.  That's why they have the JWSound forum.  That's why you're JW.  : )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish this forum had been around when I started in audio (also w/ Nagra IIIs, Uher 4000Ls, and early portable video formats).  I had to learn most of what I do know the hard way, since there was really no one to mentor with around in this area at the time--not enough work.  Nowadays I just think that there is no excuse for the sort of situation that Scott mentioned--there is SO MUCH info available on the web in forums and from manufacturers websites.  I remember the first time I saw a Nagra--and thinking that I was not going to be able to figure this thing out just by looking at it--it was a little intimidating and didn't appear to be like the consumer and video recorders I'd used up to that time.    File-based recorders are very user friendly, but that friendliness is deceptive--that ease of use has to be backed up w/ much more knowledge about post that used to be required of production sound people (and post was a lot simpler then as well).  One of the main reasons I got involved in audio post was to demystify and clarify the mounting swell of misinformation that was going around among production people about TC and audio files and how they relate to video.  Although it wasn't my intention, doing post has made me a much better production mixer.  I recommend that all production sound people actually try to work in post for a bit--it is really an eye-opener.

Philip Perkins CAS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of us in the video world are at somewhat of a disadvantage when it comes to certain sync sound/ timecode skills and the application of the world of hard disc non-linear recording.  There are so many projects where audio is just going straight to the camera that none of us ENG guys get a chance to work with these fantastic machines.  I myself have worked with the 744T and most recently the DEVA V on several reality series.  If it was not for the L.A. based sound supervisors that hired me, I would have no clue where to start with these machines.  I have done  one low budget feature which was shot on an XL1, where no sync sound & seperate recorder was needed.  I then got called for a 35mm project where sync sound was needed and I turned down the job because I did not feel I had the skills required to handle a sync sound project.  Of course this is mainly because of the market I live & work in, where there are already established feature mixers that have done the majority of what little sync sound work there is.  Fortunately there are forums like this one, Wolf's book on sync sound, and many other forms of knowledge from the internet, that I spend much of my down time researching, and reading the owners manuals of these devices, learning as much as I can about the operation.  Unfortunately I don't have the funds to buy such a machine and learn it in practical applications on jobs.  I just don't get the kind of work that justifies such a purchase !!

I will however say that I did go to school for studio recording and there is no replacement for basic knowledge of signal flow, mic selection, and good old experience in the field, no matter what forum you read !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the business has changed radically since I started recording sound.  Back in the 70s and 80s Larger Motion Picture Productions came out of the studio environment where there was a large infrastructure to back up the Production Mixer.

There was a Sound Department at the Studio that provided and maintained the Equipment you used.  A transfer department that was part of the Sound Dept. So direct communications happened when dailies came in for transfer that indicated a problem with the Production Equip.  The mixer primarily had to only have a knowledge of how to get along with all the egos on the set and how to control the levels going into the the studio provided hardware.  They really didn't need to know much about electronics theory or how to fix any of the equipment they used.  If something sounded bad, they sent it back to the shop and went to the backup or called the sound shop and they would send over another Nagra/Mixer/Mic /Cables etc.  

I came into film sound from Radio and from an electronics background and by starting my career doing documentary shoots and commercials in a small but thriving regional market (Austin Tx) for several years before moving to Hollywood,  I had developed a good working knowledge of all of my gear.  By Necessity I owned all the Service Manuals and Schematics for the Nagras Mixers and Microphones.  I built all of my peripheral equipment. (talkback systems, Doc Electronic Slates,  Bloop lights, Remote controls, Cables, even shockmounts, etc).

When I Moved to Hollywood and tried to get work as a Mixer (which  I had been very good at in Austin TX for over 4 years), I found it to be a closed shop.  All the movies were staffed from sound departments at the studios and there was a very politically oriented fiefdom based on nepotism and long family friendships.  It wasn't about what you knew or what you could do, it was about Who you knew or who you were related to.  I was appalled to work along-side award winning mixers who couldn't fix a broken cable in the field or who didn't understand why the sound they were recording was being affected by a phase reversed cable or noisy capacitor in the Mixer or Mic power supply.  When I would offer to fix the offending piece of equipment and get us quickly back in operation, I was shunned.  No one wanted someone working under them who appeared to know more than they did about the equipment they were using.  These guys could succeed and become great leaders in their field, without technical knowledge because they had good people skills and depended on the infrastructure of the Sound Dept to take care of the technical details.  I think that has all changed now.

Now there is only one sound department left at the Major Studios and that one is holding on by a thread.  All production sound mixers are independents (not full time employees of the studio) and hired on a job to job or week to week  basis.  Most get a large percentage of their income from equipment rental fees for their sound package that they must personally maintain.

Now, when things go bad in post, the fingers start pointing and they always seem to point at the Sound Mixer since it was his equipment that he was using and he is ultimately responsible for its correct operation.  It is much easier to fire a mixer for any problem on the set or in post. They don't have a chance to explain where the problem may be coming from, they are just let go.  The Unions can no longer keep them from being fired for phony reasons because they are all hired on a week to week or day to day basis even though the show they are working on has been in production for 5 years.

Mixers today need to have a much better grasp of the whole Production/Post Production workflow process.  They need to know about wireless frequency coordination, computer file format issues, Esoteric time code issues that can crop up with the plethora of Cameras that are being used these days.  You can find yourself working with 3 different types of cameras recording on 3 different media at 3 different frame rates all shooting the same scene.  A misunderstanding of any of these processes can lead to sync or sound level problems which will quickly be blamed on the sound mixer.  The sound mixer is now expected be the arbiter of sync on the set, even though the cause of the problems may be buried 4 menu's deep in a new Digital camcorder that he has never seen before the morning of the shoot.  Also we are now losing the control of the recording device as sound is fed to computer disk arrays and HDSR recorders where monitoring the quality of the sound  after the recording is impossible.

This has led to the Backup of the Backup phenomena.  You guess that recording on 3 machines or Media has you ass covered in case of some glitch or incompatibility problem.  With the speed that new cameras/recording equipment is coming out it has become impossible to keep up with all the education required.  There used to be just 2 or 3 recorders, Nagra (90%of the market) and Stellavox or Uhur or Tanburg (<10%) And they were all pretty much standardized on the same method of recording (1/4" Tape) and sync.  Now there are no less than 15 different TC production recorders all with slightly different file formats, controls, Input output routing, and sample rate/ track count range and they come from at least 10 different manufacturers.  The complexity is increasing exponentially.  We are now entering the reality TV area where we are expected to stay on top of all these technical issues while running around chasing 3 different camera crews with the equipment slung over a shoulder and being our own boom person.  

Hello early retirement....

---Courtney

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic responses to my new topic (even though I did not really lay it out so clearly) I wanted to comment on each reply post:

(while composing this, Courtney has posted a very good comment put in the important historical perspective that only a few of us old farts can still remember... )

Rob Lewis said:

“Many of us in the video world are at somewhat of a disadvantage when it comes to certain sync sound/ timecode skills and the application of the world of hard disc non-linear recording.  There are so many projects where audio is just going straight to the camera that none of us ENG guys get a chance to work with these fantastic machines.”

JW-  You are so right about this. I really only used the “recorder” as an example --- many of the same issues, that of understanding the whole system, still apply (even moreso in some respects) to ENG-type work. Specifically, you are freed to a certain extent from double system sync issues, but you are more or less expected, professionally, to fully understand the audio recording device being used (that consumer video camera in the hands of a CAMERA person, not a sound mixer).

Rob says:

“I will however say that I did go to school for studio recording and there is no replacement for basic knowledge of signal flow, mic selection, and good old experience in the field, no matter what forum you read !”

JW- Absolutely. Learning about ALL the tools and how they are to be used is important. Again, by my using the recorders for illustration I do not mean to diminish the very real need for a good working understanding of the other very important and primary tools for all of our work: the microphone, the preamp, levels, the interconnections, the signal flow.

Philip Perkins said:

“I wish this forum had been around when I started in audio (also w/ Nagra IIIs, Uher 4000Ls, and early portable video formats).  I had to learn most of what I do know the hard way, since there was really no one to mentor with around in this area at the time--”

JW- Many of us had to learn “on the job” and it is so true that there were few if any mentors and no really viable system for the equivalent of an internship. Union crews were staffed as per the contracts, there was no decent way to get IN the union, and non-union work was “staffed” by whoever was willing to do the job for “$300 a week, you and your equipment, flat”.

Philip says:

“Nowadays I just think that there is no excuse for the sort of situation that Scott mentioned--there is SO MUCH info available on the web in forums and from manufacturers websites.”

JW- This is a huge advantage now but I think still under utilized often by the people who need it the most. I am pleased that my little Discussion Group may be helping a bit in this area.

Philip:

“File-based recorders are very user friendly, but that friendliness is deceptive--that ease of use has to be backed up w/ much more knowledge about post that used to be required of production sound people (and post was a lot simpler then as well).  One of the main reasons I got involved in audio post was to demystify and clarify the mounting swell of misinformation that was going around among production people about TC and audio files and how they relate to video.  Although it wasn't my intention, doing post has made me a much better production mixer.  I recommend that all production sound people actually try to work in post for a bit--it is really an eye-opener.”

JW- So true, particularly about the deceptively “simple” equipment these days. Almost anyone can find the big red record button but it is unfortunate that for so many the knowledge stops there at the button.

taylor (I’m not sure your whole name) said:

“This person goes out with the little capital that's left in the ol' bank account and purchases a small ENG package.

With the basic understanding this person has, let's say he/she is able to land and successfully complete a job or two with decent results and then land a boom gig or two with a mixer here, a mixer there -- anyone willing to give the greenhorn a shot.  This person asks enough questions, and keeps his/her eyes (and ears)  : ) open, gleans enough basic knowledge of set protocol, including the mixer's routine, to not only avoid being fired, but actually land a mixing job on a really low budget feature.  Let's say this produces mixed results (pun intended) but the producers are happy enough, and off we go -- now we're a production sound mixer!  We're green, the boom op's greener, but hey, the whole production is, so we fit right in.”

JW- This is basically how we all started out, and this was out of necessity (exclusion from the union and the better jobs, etc.) the problem is how quickly do we learn all this stuff, how quickly are we able to really advance in our craft and our careers.

Isn't this 'learn as you go' method (in a way) the entrepreneurial vessle by which many (now veteran) sound mixers chissled out careers for themselves?  At some point you just dive in and hope you come up paddling.”

JW- That’s what I did and fortunately, for everyone, I did a pretty good job on the first movie and got the chance to do another.

“My guess is that no matter how basic the question might be, you're compelled to answer it -- you want to see these people succeed -- it's in your blood, and you recognize it in theirs.  You also recognize that, like it or not, in this technologically exploding world, more and more mixers ARE finding themselves in a bit over their heads and need a place to find answers.  That's why they have the JWSound forum.  That's why you're JW.”

JW- I take that as a compliment. Unfortunately, I do know too many people that are NOT willing to share their knowledge, experience and expertise, for fear of losing their own job to someone else (who possibly just yesterday was totally clueless).

Rich said:

“I believe traditionally in the production ranks that people move up through classification, ie. utility, boom, mixer.  Unless your fortunate to have a mixer that is interested in passing on the knowledge while your working, you must educate yourself in regards to mixing techniques, and machine knowledge.  When working 14 hour days it takes some dedication to find the time for education.”

JW- This is true. The demands in production, even with a 3 person crew on a relatively easy shoot, do not provide much opportunity for education, discussion and so forth.

“I always try to pass on some knowledge when I find I'm working with someone who's interested in learning why I'm doing something, or how a certain machine works.  Frequently, I find it's rare that crew members will ask why, or how?”

JW- For those who do seek the knowledge, ask the questions, mixers such as yourself, willing to discuss the “how and the why” is a most valuable resource.

“I'm also very impressed by the knowledge of many of the posters here.  I have absolutely no knowledge of the work being done in the "reality" world of television, but I do admire and respect the quality of their work and the knowledge that they share with others here.

In many ways this site has become a resource for knowledge of all things related to the recording of production sound.  Be it on a major film, television show, reality show or sporting event.  I believe you have established a mentoring site for all those interested in passing along their knowledge, and for that I'm grateful.”

JW- I am very pleased as well the diversity of members we have here on this Group. The generosity of spirit and the wealth of knowledge freely shared by the handful of regular participants is very gratifying.

Scott Farr:

“I think it is the producers responsibility to make sure that the crew member they are hiring does know how to do the job with the tools required. Just because your resume is amazing doesn’t mean you have the skill set to do "XYZ" “

JW- Producers are not that smart (and are also guided in their choices by so many factors that will NOT lead them to the proper choice of qualified crew) that I don’t think we can count on that responsibility (which I agree with you is a production responsibility).

“I feel it is the responsibility of the person of the given craft to know atleast the very basics of the tools of a given trade and as well as how to interact with the other departments.”

JW- I agree with you, however part of the thrust of this discussion is HOW to gain the necessary information and develop the skills we are talking about.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Jeff,

Yes, it was meant as a compliment -- I used to take the stance that sharing knowledge with other mixers (especially future mixers) would be sharing myself right out of a job... and in some markets, it's a valid concern, but I was forced to get over that way of thinking really early on (I've only been doing this for 15 years, but I think I can still say things like 'early on')... If I get undercut by a newbie and lose out on a job, then perhaps I should either lower my prices (God forbid) or broaden my market.

My only true 'competition' is myself.  Yes, I have a responsibility to research as much as I can -- to stay current -- to stay marketable.  There is so much demand for content these days, there's no reason we can't ALL be as busy as we want to be.  Are we ALL ready for the next job?  I think with guys like you around, that answer will increasingly be a resounding yes.

-tt

(it's tom, btw)  : )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now back to the question of "how much do we need to know" and for you Union members you simply have a certificate system that says "John Q. Smith" has passed the minimum requirements to be at pay grade "Y4" or Sound Utility.

Just my thoughts, but without a standardized training format with minimium requirements how can you ask the question "how much do we need to know?"

I asked this question in  this manner because I knew there was no clear, immediate answer. If we DID have standards and minimum requirements or certification, then the question IS answered: we need to know enough to pass the test, get the certificate, move up the ranks, get better pay, etc.

In the case of our union, the I.A., the "minimum requirement" is to be a member, pay your dues, abide by the rules --- this lets you into the club and gives you the "certificate" (the union card) which is, as Wolf Seeburg has said many times, is just a work permit.

There are lots of reasons why the I.A. generally does not have testing procedures, certification programs and so forth, and some of the reasons even involve various Federal laws governing labor unions (some of these being laws passed in favor of labor but turned around to actually benefit management). I will go into some of these later. I personally would like to see some sort of real training programs (which would also start with provisions for proper internship work, not just a lower pay scale for the producer to take advantage of) and union certification of completion and competency. By doing so we could help production, as you pointed out, make those decisions about the people they hire.

I don't think this will happen but it is something to think about.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Jeff and all. I too like this topic and all the posts. How much do we need to know? You can never know too much cause there is too much to know, whether it be about life, film, or sound recording. For me, from film school through the non union days and all my 29.4 IA Union Years, it has almost always been about learning more each day. Thats because from day one,( OK day 2), I knew how much I didn't know. Thats my mind set. I like learning and reading and thinking and talking to other's, and have learned boatloads. Some folks learn just enough, or one method to get by and thats it. That is way to boring to me. I've learned more in the last 10 years than I did in the first twenty yrs of my sound career, but that is because of what I learned in those first twenty yrs gave me the foundation to learn so much more at a time of great transition in our modern world. Like others, I have had many great mentors and friends over the years that I could never thank enough, but it was and is always a two way street, so one must always be ready to learn. My point is, well maybe it is like John Huston says to Jack in Chinatown "Course I'm respectable. I'm old... Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough" ....  Change respectable to knowledgeable and thats my point. It takes time, but you can only get it if you want it, and Jeff's site is a good place to learn or share, and for that I'm grateful.

CrewC

ps RVD, keep writing, your good at it. Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I come to this discussion from a somewhat different place than many others. Although I actually have a Master’s Degree in Film, that training has little to do with technical issues on set. I learned about Sergei Eisenstein and Karel Reisz but little about capacitors and signal paths or anything really useful.

I learned about sound recording by doing it, first on documentaries and small commercial projects, and later on features. I bought gear, read the manuals, asked questions at the rental shops, and learned to listen when people like Stu Cody, Neil Stone, Bruce Bisenz and Mike Denecke were talking. I wouldn’t have worked much if I had never accepted an assignment that required using unfamiliar gear. Over the course of years I’ve made about every dumb mistake I’ve ever heard of, some of them more than once. Some of them recently. There are a few things I’ve learned from this experience. No doubt none of this will be news to any of you but my certain knowledge of sound recording is such a small accumulation that I can summarize it here without consuming all the bandwidth.

1. There are troubles and there are TROUBLES. Errors in sync settings, misidentified slates, metadata errors, even mis-matched tape speeds all represent trouble. Lousy sound (where good sound is possible) is TROUBLE.

2. Never jump to conclusions about a problem until you have listened to the original tape or file. No matter how obvious this may seem, many experienced pros will jump to conclusions based on experience with a copy. Nothing is a disaster until you confirm the problem on the original.

3. If it sounds lousy in the headphones, it will lousy everywhere. If it sounds good in the headphones, it will probably work fine in the project. This sounds obvious but you will often be pressured to move on with the assurance that lousy is OK. Your job is to make it sound good in the headphones. Not perfect, just good so you can clearly hear the actor above the background and the voice has resonance. If you accomplish that, and manage to hit the record switch, someone will be able to cope with location noise, errors in file format, sync, etc. If you don’t accomplish that, no one will care that the sync is perfect.

4. Finally, if you are working in TV and you get good sound in the close-ups, everything will probably be OK. They’ll probably cut to the close-up for the dialog anyway but, even if they don’t, they’ll use the sound from the close-up in the wider shot.

This is pretty much everything I know about recording sound for films. Meager as it is, I find it serves me well and I am continually amazed at the number of people who don’t know this much.

I don’t mean to come off as a wise guy. I contributed this little kernel of wisdom or foolishness because of all the concern I hear on various forums about sync and other relatively minor issues. A consistent problem will get you fired from a show if the editor must divert attention from other matters to correct it but glitches can usually be fixed.

David Waelder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a new mixer, I find this an interesting topic.

It seems there are many guys like myself jumping into mixing.  We have boomed and done utility work, but not for as long as people used to, and perhaps lack the traditional amount of experience before moving up.  But especially under so many new contracts, we can't affort to wait as long before moving up.  Rates go down, hours get longer, conditions get harder.  We want to take time off with our families, but can't afford the time off anymore.

I know gear.  I was always very aware of every complaint a mixer had about his gear.  I watched him operate it, curse it as it failed, praise it as it served him well.  I listened to calls from post regarding workflow.  When gear was sent to be repaired, I paid attention to what was wrong and how it was made better.  I learned which cart set-ups were more reliable, more convenient, easier to move, easier to set up, easier to load on a truck/stakebed.  I learned to run all the new machines as they came out.  I did all of this to be a better utility guy.  I actually never thought I would want ot mix.  I love GEAR.

Then I got into the "art" of mixing and the "skill" of getting re-hired.  Paying attention to how the mix was done.  Learning to mix a whole scene, and not just one shot at a time.  Understanding the process and what the editors need, want, and the difference between the two.  What was important to make an issue of on set, and was was better to let go in lieu of a more important issue yet to come.  This is what made me want to become a mixer.  This delicate dance, this uncooperative teamwork, this odd business.

This is what I feel we need to know.  This is what's important.  The work.  The project.  Having fun.  Doing a good job.  Fining joy somewhere in the painfully boring 16-hour day on the seventh spin-off of some terrible TV show.  Having a good time working for far less than you are accustomed to for a project that is INTERESTING.  Helping a new filmmaker get a good start by giving their short or small film a better production track than they can afford.

There are too many guys out there throwing faders up an down, worrying about every single word of every single take of every single scene, and not LISTENING.  This is what we need to know...how to LISTEN, not just how to HEAR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice one

Yeah, there is a big difference.  It's funny how much of our job has nothing to do with sitting behind a console and moving faders up and down.  I think that's exactly wherein lies the rub.  Some people think that because they have a basic understanding of how a particular machine works, that they're automatically assured to get good sound -- nevermind that they (boom ops included) don't think to walk the set and make sure there are no noisy balasts, or put mats and furnie pads down BEFORE they start laying and leveling the dolly track.  Nevermind they're afraid to talk to a director or 1st AD about a potential problem until three takes in. Yeah, it sucks putting moleskin on an actress' shoes in front of the whole crew -- "waiting on sound"... head it off at the pass. Be intuitive.

That said, it's a really fine line -- the squeaky wheel thing -- between getting the grease and getting replaced, but it's EXPERIENCE -- nothing else -- that will guide us to make the right decisions.  Of course we all make mistakes -- just don't make 'em twice.  : )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I was in the IA I was in NABET, a tiny local of free-lancers in SF.  We actually had tests for all categories.  They were pretty good tests for the time (late 1970s), but they were HUGELY controversial, especially when people with established reputations were not passed.  There were accusations of trying to keep competition out, personal vendettas etc etc.  My IA local (16) has tests for apprentices moving up, stage rigging, etc mostly having to do w/ stage hand work, but I've never heard of one for sound, except as part of theatre electrical.  Are there tests for joining 695?

Philip Perkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been doing this for a while now, not nearly as long as most of the folks on this Forum, but long enough to say I'm in it for the long haul, pending a career ending injury. I started out doing live broadcast sound for the local news, which was part of the NABET contract for broadcast engineers in NY. Everything was already built, installed, tuned, and ready to go. All I needed to do was hit the mute buttons on time, and occasionally bump a soft SOT level or something. As I did this, I spent my copious amounts of free time reading about production sound, and sound in general. After a while, I picked up a PA gig (Which paid more, go figure) on "The Time Machine" where I ended up meeting, and hanging around David MacMillan for the entire time. He and Duke were very personable, cheerful, knowledgeable and open to sharing their knowledge. I grilled them about everything I saw, and they graciously filled me in. I am very much in debt to the boost they gave me towards this career.

When I took the plunge, and moved out here, I looked David up, as I didn't know a soul, and he helped me out even more, bringing me on the set of "Like Mike" for more exposure, and later introducing me to Jim Webb, who filled me in on how things were, are, and what to look out for. From all of this help, and study, I gave myself a good "Zen" of what was expected of me, and how to follow through before I ever hit the big red button. Since then, I have made a point to stay on top of the tidal wave of new technology and procedures. Now it's up to me to keep up with it, and pass along some knowledge to a deserving youngster when the opportunity presents itself. It seems to me that this "Pay it forward" kindness has been a fundamental part of the growth and evolution of the entire film making trade since it's onset, and one of the things that most endears me to it.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no tests to qualify for joining I.A. Local 695. Regarding testing that was in place in the past, with NABET as you mentioned, I did have some first hand experience with the potential problem of testing. I had already done about 7 or 8 movies, all of which involved "on the job" training (and copius amounts of bluffing), and had actually learned a substantial amount about our craft. I was trying desperately to get into some union, either NABET or the I.A., and was getting nowhere fast. Jim Tennenbaum showed me the NABET test (which I believe he may have written), I took it one day and failed miserably. So, I couldn't pass the NABET test, the I.A. of course would not let ANYBODY in, test or no test, so I resorted to a class action lawsuit with about 20 others to get the right to join the I.A. The rest is history (but still worthy of discussion).

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in my Coffey Sound days, I was amazed at the amount of things union production sound guys...making way more than I made, did not know. Basic signal flow and gain structure things. Not everyone is like that, mind you, but a lot are, and I found it frustrating, as a product specialist, do basically be that sound mixers extra third utility, over the phone. Granted, support for the customer was part of my job, but there are some folks out there that have no business at a sound cart, and yet somehow coast along from job to job and not get fired. Again, these are the minority. However, I found it frustrating to esentailly be doing that person's job via phone, and they get all the credit. I guess that's part of the reason I don't work at Coffey any more. It's not a bad place to work, but I moved here to do post, not other people's mixing jobs.

-Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no tests to qualify for joining I.A. Local 695. Regarding testing that was in place in the past, with NABET as you mentioned, I did have some first hand experience with the potential problem of testing. I had already done about 7 or 8 movies, all of which involved "on the job" training (and copius amounts of bluffing), and had actually learned a substantial amount about our craft. I was trying desperately to get into some union, either NABET or the I.A., and was getting nowhere fast. Jim Tennenbaum showed me the NABET test (which I believe he may have written), I took it one day and failed miserably. So, I couldn't pass the NABET test, the I.A. of course would not let ANYBODY in, test or no test, so I resorted to a class action lawsuit with about 20 others to get the right to join the I.A. The rest is history (but still worthy of discussion).

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

The NABET local 15 (NYC) test was VERY comprehensive and deeply technical (that may have been the one Jim Tannenbaum wrote).  Fortunately for me my NABET local didn't use that test at the time I joined--ours was far more discrectionary and oral.  In retrospect, a chunk of what was on that Local 15 test was really beyond what a location sound person of that period really NEEDED to know (as you had already found out)--and a lot of it seemed somewhat punitive--as though if you didn't have a really deep professional background in electronics you couldn't start working in production sound even on basic jobs. 

Philip Perkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NABET local 15 (NYC) test was VERY comprehensive and deeply technical (that may have been the one Jim Tannenbaum wrote)

Philip Perkins

I don't think so. The test was not overly technical (actually, not over my head even at that time in terms of heavy technical stuff) but it suffered from the sort of testing bias and being multiple choice did not allow for any sort of discussion. There was only ONE right answer, like "C" or "None of the Above" to questions like: "when in windy conditions, one should use THIS microphone" and the answer was "B" - Sennheiser 805. Even at that time, with my fairly limited experience, I was not pleased with questions where the answer would really not discover whether I knew anything about how to choose the proper mic for a windy situation.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so. The test was not overly technical (actually, not over my head even at that time in terms of heavy technical stuff) but it suffered from the sort of testing bias and being multiple choice did not allow for any sort of discussion. There was only ONE right answer, like "C" or "None of the Above" to questions like: "when in windy conditions, one should use THIS microphone" and the answer was "B" - Sennheiser 805. Even at that time, with my fairly limited experience, I was not pleased with questions where the answer would really not discover whether I knew anything about how to choose the proper mic for a windy situation.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Jeff,

I was on the Local 15 Executive Board the last couple of years before the merger. Testing was a very sore subject, and tests in the wardrobe and makeup/hair departments led to lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits. The wardrobe folks in other cities (Boston, DC, Baltimore, Atlanta, Dallas and San Francisco - I think I got 'em all) couldn't pass the test because specific knowledge of resources in Manhattan were needed to pass the test. Much like the sound test you mentioned, the wardrobe test reflected the knowledge base of the persons who wrote it and answers reflecting what was needed to function as a wardrobe person in the other cities were wrong! There was also at least one discrimination suit filed over the makeup/hair tests.

The practical test should have covered the issues you had and I know that on some of the tests I proctored in DC, I passed folks who missed some questions on the written test when it became clear they knew what they were doing.

I'm part of a Studio Mechanic's local now and while there are no tests per se, grips can get certified on Condors and other lifts, some of the camera cranes and some of the rigging equipment they use, like chain motors. Electricians can take tests on the electric code. There is a course offered in diving, so we have safety divers and all members are urged to take first aid classes, which get offered pretty regularly. There are also classes offered to qualify folks as Shop Stewards.

Some of my colleagues have been talking about setting up some training opportunities for the sound department, but it's hard to get enough folks together to make it possible. There have been some gear-based show and tell events, but we need more than that. The need for some kind of skills qualification became clear to me last month when I got called out to a job in the middle of the night to bail out somebody who took a playback job without any understanding of what was required and managed to make a complete mess of things. The guy had a card, but didn't have a clue.

Thanks,

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading all these posts, (i gotta get out more) has confirmed for me what I have long suspected. I have been very lucky to have had the career I've had. I'm not technical at all, just the basics and enough savvy to get along. I came from a music background (Producing and playing, not very much engineering) and morphed into film sound almost by accident. I don't want to be the longest poster here by giving up my history but the point I'm making is that a combination of "on the job" education, thorough research for each job and a willingness to listen and learn from all departments on the set, will broaden your ability to get the job done, fix any problems and leave your crew and colleagues with a smile on their faces to match your own. I've learned from reading and listening, along with applying myself to areas of the job which didn't exist ten years ago, that this business is changing and it's obvious from the exchanges in this forum that we are changing with it, regardless of age or experience. That's what encourages me, along with the knowledge, experience and quirky humor to be found on this forum. I love it here.

Regards

Mick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...