Print

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

[Tom Young]

In the latest edition (April 2013) of AudioMedia magazine there is a brief article about the live sound training program at Brit Row.

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/newbay/audiomedia_201304/#/30

More at Brit Row's website:

http://training.britanniarow.com/about/

I think most of us are aware that there is no longer the training ground that existed (for many of us) in the 1970's and through the early 1990's due (primarily) to the shrinking of the live music scene. At the same time, many of us observe that while the new systems are far more "turn-key" and require less troubleshooting and set up, gone also are the opportunities to learn the inner-workings of equipment and other tasks that provided us with much of the knowledge we have accumulated over the years and which continues to inform what we do and how well we do it.

So maybe here in N America the larger sound companies can adapt what Brit Row is doing. Maybe they can partner with contracting companies and consulting firms. Maybe get manufacturers involved.

And to everyone's benefit.

Just a thought.

[Robert Healey]

It seems like the general consensus is that classroom training is useless in live audio and work experience is the best way to learn. I thought that too until I took Bob Coffeen's Electro-Acoustics class at the University of Kansas - now I just think students need to find the right teacher and supplement their education with plenty of practical experience (or supplement their practical experience with a little bit of good classroom education).

[Art Welter]

I think most of us are aware that there is no longer the training ground that existed (for many of us) in the 1970's and through the early 1990's due (primarily) to the shrinking of the live music scene.
So maybe here in N America the larger sound companies can adapt what Brit Row is doing. Maybe they can partner with contracting companies and consulting firms. Maybe get manufacturers involved.

And to everyone's benefit.

Tom,

Although the (paying) live music scene has shrunk somewhat, the opportunity to learn on line, and actually ask questions of real pros was not nearly as available 30 years ago.
While I had only a few mentors in the 1970's & 80s, now one can find many more than that on line regardless of where in the world you live.

All I ever got from apprentices was a clean floor and coffee until they realized that they would not be mixing arena shows in six months  .
With 18 applicants paying 6000 pounds apiece, with the possibility one or more which may get a job, seems Brit Row will derive the primary benefit  .

Brit Row will capitalize on the lottery system, while taking a bit of the wind from the Full Sail...

Art

[Rick Earl]

I am proud to be part of a university program that I think offers a lot to help prepare students for a job in both live sound and studio work if they so desire.   

We have formal training on basics of signal flow, gain structure, recording  and live sound techniques.   Additional classes in the physics of sound, music theory, music business and aural skills.   Students also must complete further requirements for the university in  general liberal arts studies.    They are  required to do an on campus and an external internship.    On campus we have multiple events a year that range from typical corporate type events to concerts in different venues.  We obviously have our procedures down, but try to let them know that they may differ with another company.   Off campus internships have included  major studios, sound companies, broadcasters, festivals and manufacturers.

I have taken students on some of my freelance work to experience large festivals, less than ideal environments and the opportunity to see other systems and methods of deployment.

None of this was available when I was coming through the industry, but it gives students a good foundation,  the ability to think and synthesize and adapt instead of rote recall of procedures.

Of course, the desire for students to learn and try to gain more knowledge is a big factor to their success.  For the most part those who have graduated from the program are finding work in the field.

They also end up with a BS from an accredited university that can serve them well in the future, especially in the current job market.


 

[Jerome Malsack]

but this leaves you with a problem and that is what is there background and can they show the why and how it works explanation.  I have been very fortunate to have found a few good mentors to work with and I have been sharing some of this experience with others.  This site and the forum adds to this and has proven very helpful.  I feel some have been also putting up the walls to protect their position and clients. 

[Matthias Postel]

Hi everyone,
@Tom: Thanks for picking this up and starting a debate.

As was mentioned in the article, Brit Row have for many years organized their own in-house training with work experience accompanied by classes. What we’ve done now is to offer this more broadly and in a dedicated way. The difference to on-the-job training and to sweeping floors/making coffee is that our trainees will go through an intensive, practical programme that has been designed by the industry for the industry and will be delivered by working engineers and technicians. Over 12 weeks participants will spend full days with integrated theoretical and practical learning and practice. 

All of this was also motivated by frustration about existing education options which – at least here in the UK – do not prepare aspiring sound people appropriately for work in live sound.

@Tom: Indeed, technology has shifted substantially in recent years. From our point of view, it is a shift in the kind of skills required, but not necessarily a reduction of the amount of skills or knowledge required. Agreed, an entry level technician is probably less likely to be confronted with the inner workings, but at a more advanced level and in the context of a busy rental company there is still a lot of work “under the hood” that some people might develop towards. Mind you, this initial programme is preparing for work at an entry technician level. It does not claim to produce “engineers” (certainly not within  a 12-week course).

@Robert: That’s our thinking. “Classroom training” by itself is of not much value. Hence, our approach to have it fully integrated with practice.

@Art: Absolutely, online resources and potential contact to (more or less) professional people through the internet is fantastic and is certainly contributing to improved awareness and practices, especially at the amateur level. However, it can’t replace actually doing it respectively being taught practically.
As our trainees will have an edge over those who are following other paths or who have not been trained, we will see many of them going into good opportunities. The one guaranteed placement is another difference to other education options and demonstrates BR’s confidence in the quality of this training programme.
The fact that this is a dedicated programme with dedicated facilities and professionals spending considerable time with 100% attention for the purpose of training (in fact over 500 hours of organized activities) means that it does have a cost which is very visible as there is currently no government subsidy. Of course, this is a commercial activity, which requires investment, just like the audio rental business does.

Coming back to Tom’s original point and Andrew’s article: We think it’s a good concept  , made possible by the expertise and resources behind it.


Matthias Postel
Managing Director
Britannia Row Productions Training

[Doug Fowler]

Hi everyone,
@Tom: Thanks for picking this up and starting a debate.

As was mentioned in the article, Brit Row have for many years organized their own in-house training with work experience accompanied by classes. What we’ve done now is to offer this more broadly and in a dedicated way. The difference to on-the-job training and to sweeping floors/making coffee is that our trainees will go through an intensive, practical programme that has been designed by the industry for the industry and will be delivered by working engineers and technicians. Over 12 weeks participants will spend full days with integrated theoretical and practical learning and practice. 

All of this was also motivated by frustration about existing education options which – at least here in the UK – do not prepare aspiring sound people appropriately for work in live sound.

@Tom: Indeed, technology has shifted substantially in recent years. From our point of view, it is a shift in the kind of skills required, but not necessarily a reduction of the amount of skills or knowledge required. Agreed, an entry level technician is probably less likely to be confronted with the inner workings, but at a more advanced level and in the context of a busy rental company there is still a lot of work “under the hood” that some people might develop towards. Mind you, this initial programme is preparing for work at an entry technician level. It does not claim to produce “engineers” (certainly not within  a 12-week course).

@Robert: That’s our thinking. “Classroom training” by itself is of not much value. Hence, our approach to have it fully integrated with practice.

@Art: Absolutely, online resources and potential contact to (more or less) professional people through the internet is fantastic and is certainly contributing to improved awareness and practices, especially at the amateur level. However, it can’t replace actually doing it respectively being taught practically.
As our trainees will have an edge over those who are following other paths or who have not been trained, we will see many of them going into good opportunities. The one guaranteed placement is another difference to other education options and demonstrates BR’s confidence in the quality of this training programme.
The fact that this is a dedicated programme with dedicated facilities and professionals spending considerable time with 100% attention for the purpose of training (in fact over 500 hours of organized activities) means that it does have a cost which is very visible as there is currently no government subsidy. Of course, this is a commercial activity, which requires investment, just like the audio rental business does.

Coming back to Tom’s original point and Andrew’s article: We think it’s a good concept  , made possible by the expertise and resources behind it.


Matthias Postel
Managing Director
Britannia Row Productions Training

Matthias -

Please change your display name within your profile to display your full name.

Many thanks....

[Matthias Postel]

fixed.

[Jared Koopman]

Recently came across this http://mastermixlive.com/. Any of you have experience with these guys?

[Art Welter]

Hi everyone,
Over 12 weeks participants will spend full days with integrated theoretical and practical learning and practice. 

Mind you, this initial programme is preparing for work at an entry technician level. It does not claim to produce “engineers” (certainly not within  a 12-week course).

The one guaranteed placement is another difference to other education options and demonstrates BR’s confidence in the quality of this training programme.

Coming back to Tom’s original point and Andrew’s article: We think it’s a good concept  , made possible by the expertise and resources behind it.


Matthias Postel
Managing Director
Britannia Row Productions Training

Matthias,

I agree, the potential to extract $432,000 pounds a year from 72 apprentices taught how to work at an entry technician level, while only guaranteeing 4 of them an entry level position is indeed a good concept for Brit Row.

After receiving approximately 12 pounds an hour per head watching to see who can learn the basics (presumably they load plenty of trucks, sort plenty of cords, etc.) you get to pick the 5.5% that actually have demonstrated potential.

Simply brilliant!

Art

[ProSoundWeb Community]