[Adrian Tuddenham]

I recently found myself in an awkward recording situation brought about
by not asking the right questions before I started (or at least not
getting the right answers to the questions I did ask):

Everything was all set up ready to record a civil wedding ceremony which
should have been a simple one-stereo-mic affair. Then, with 10 minutes
to go, I discovered by pure chance that there were going to be two
readings from a different part of the venue, which nobody had told me
about.

There was a spare mic and pre-amp in my kit, but I had left the extra
cables and stand in the car about a quarter of a mile away. After a
sprint and some quick work with gaffer tape, I managed to rig the second
mic - but I hadn't brought a mixer.

Luckily, when I designed those pre-amps, something in the back of my
mind had nagged me to put 600-ohm resistors in the output circuits, so
their outputs could be paralleled in the event of some unforseen
emergency. All my line level kit uses double-ended Gauge 'B' jack leads
and fortunately I had left a jack strip in the bottom of the kit box,
wired as two parallel groups of 5 sockets.

With the outputs of the pre-amps paralleled on the strip and connected
to the DAT recorder inputs (also modified for Post-Office jacks), I was
able to do a simple on/off mix by using the gain switches on the
pre-amps. The jumps in gain could be smoothed out later.


The 600-ohm/P.O. jack system might seem old fashioned and cumbersome,
but it saved my bacon on that occasion.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 25, 8:08 am, (Adrian
Tuddenham) wrote:

Everything was all set up ready to record a civil wedding ceremony which
should have been a simple one-stereo-mic affair. Then, with 10 minutes
to go, I discovered by pure chance that there were going to be two
readings from a different part of the venue, which nobody had told me
about.

Don't you just hate when that happens? Or when they don't tell you
that to start the concert one of the members of the band is going ot
enter from the back of the hall playing a native flute? These days I'd
probably just grab the Zoom H2, hand it to someone in the audience
standing near the flute player, and say "Here, hold this for me,
please, and try not to cough until after the flute solo."

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On Sep 25, 8:08 am, (Adrian
Tuddenham) wrote:

Everything was all set up ready to record a civil wedding ceremony which
should have been a simple one-stereo-mic affair. Then, with 10 minutes
to go, I discovered by pure chance that there were going to be two
readings from a different part of the venue, which nobody had told me
about.

Don't you just hate when that happens?

It happens far too often at live events, even well-rehearsed ones.

Or when they don't tell you
that to start the concert one of the members of the band is going ot
enter from the back of the hall playing a native flute? These days I'd
probably just grab the Zoom H2, hand it to someone in the audience
standing near the flute player, and say "Here, hold this for me,
please, and try not to cough until after the flute solo."

The Registrar had made it very plain that this was a serious occasion
and there was to be no moving about once the ceremony had started. A
hand-held mic would have been out of the question; even video-recording
was banned unless it was done with a fixed camera out of direct vision
of the 'audience'.

The mic I used for the main part of the ceremony was visually large and
obtrusive, so that had to be hidden behind a substantial flower
arrangement. Luckily the mic for the reading was placed to one side and
didn't have to be concealed.

I also used a Sony Walkman with its mic fixed to the railings of a
balcony about 20ft from the proceedings, so if all else failed I would
have had a very distant recording from that.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Richard Crowley]

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote ...
Mike Rivers wrote:
Don't you just hate when that happens?

It happens far too often at live events, even well-rehearsed ones.

My response recently has been "If you had wanted it recorded,
I presume you would have told me about it. But since you retained
the role of recording producer, the buck stops with you. Reading
minds and clairvoyance is above my pay-grade."

[Geoff]

Mike Rivers wrote:
"Here, hold this for me,
please, and try not to cough until after the flute solo."

.... as the bishop said to the actress.

geoff

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:45:47 +0100, lid
(Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

The Registrar had made it very plain that this was a serious occasion
and there was to be no moving about once the ceremony had started. A
hand-held mic would have been out of the question; even video-recording
was banned unless it was done with a fixed camera out of direct vision
of the 'audience'.

What the F does a "Registrar" have to do with a wedding? I've been
"the Photographer" for several weddings, and have without exception
been given even more authority than I'd have ever wanted. I didn't
seek these gigs; the couple came to me; so I was working for *the
couple* - only. It's *their* wedding, no matter who's paying for it.

Maybe because I don't work in the wedding business (and neither do
you, it seems from correspondence here?) I can easily afford to stand
up to the bureaucracy that grows up around the wedding biz. But my
slight contact with the biz has convinced me firmly that every brave
soul must stand up for the couple's interests, as (s)he sees 'em. This
seems to oft' conflict with that of the "Registrar"s of the world.

Keep fighting the good fight, and much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Paul Stamler]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
...

The Registrar had made it very plain that this was a serious occasion
and there was to be no moving about once the ceremony had started. A
hand-held mic would have been out of the question; even video-recording
was banned unless it was done with a fixed camera out of direct vision
of the 'audience'.

What the F does a "Registrar" have to do with a wedding?

In a church in England, probably a great deal.

Peace,
Paul

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:45:47 +0100, lid
(Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

The Registrar had made it very plain that this was a serious occasion
and there was to be no moving about once the ceremony had started. A
hand-held mic would have been out of the question; even video-recording
was banned unless it was done with a fixed camera out of direct vision
of the 'audience'.

What the F does a "Registrar" have to do with a wedding?

He is the person licenced to perform marriages and if he doen't think
the ceremony is proceeding with sufficient decorum, he can stop the
ceremony and declare the marriage void.

I've been
"the Photographer" for several weddings, and have without exception
been given even more authority than I'd have ever wanted. I didn't
seek these gigs; the couple came to me; so I was working for *the
couple* - only. It's *their* wedding, no matter who's paying for it.

Maybe because I don't work in the wedding business (and neither do
you, it seems from correspondence here?) I can easily afford to stand
up to the bureaucracy that grows up around the wedding biz. But my
slight contact with the biz has convinced me firmly that every brave
soul must stand up for the couple's interests, as (s)he sees 'em. This
seems to oft' conflict with that of the "Registrar"s of the world.

Both the couple and yourself are obliged to do what the registrar says.
If the Registrar refuses to continue with the ceremony because he
considers your behaviour disruptive, you will have even fewer wedding
recordings to worry about after that.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[hank alrich]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

Both the couple and yourself are obliged to do what the registrar says.
If the Registrar refuses to continue with the ceremony because he
considers your behaviour disruptive, you will have even fewer wedding
recordings to worry about after that.

Imagine how humorus I find that, having been married by a friend who was
a minister in the Church of Universal Life, using a ceremony I wrote,
that was laden with good humor. I'd not have a "registrar" anywhere near
my own wedding.

Laws regarding marriage are often, how you say it, "fascinating". g

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Adrian Tuddenham]

hank alrich wrote:

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

Both the couple and yourself are obliged to do what the registrar says.
If the Registrar refuses to continue with the ceremony because he
considers your behaviour disruptive, you will have even fewer wedding
recordings to worry about after that.

Imagine how humorus I find that, having been married by a friend who was
a minister in the Church of Universal Life, using a ceremony I wrote,
that was laden with good humor. I'd not have a "registrar" anywhere near
my own wedding.

Laws regarding marriage are often, how you say it, "fascinating". g

If you want the marriage to stand up in law (in the UK) you have to go
through certain formalities in appropriately licenced places, with
appropriately licenced people presiding over the ceremony. If you don't
do that, you are not legally married.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:25:58 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

Imagine how humorus I find that, having been married by a friend who was
a minister in the Church of Universal Life, using a ceremony I wrote,
that was laden with good humor. I'd not have a "registrar" anywhere near
my own wedding.

If "registrar" means anything you DID have one - the minister, who in
your territory is obviously empowered to act as such.

[Les Cargill]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:25:58 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

Imagine how humorus I find that, having been married by a friend who was
a minister in the Church of Universal Life, using a ceremony I wrote,
that was laden with good humor. I'd not have a "registrar" anywhere near
my own wedding.

If "registrar" means anything you DID have one - the minister, who in
your territory is obviously empowered to act as such.


County governments offer the service of selling marriage
licences. Requires certain tests for disease, not much else.

Some marriages can be legal with out 'em. Not sure
how that works...


--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

hank alrich wrote:

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

Both the couple and yourself are obliged to do what the registrar says.
If the Registrar refuses to continue with the ceremony because he
considers your behaviour disruptive, you will have even fewer wedding
recordings to worry about after that.

Imagine how humorus I find that, having been married by a friend who was
a minister in the Church of Universal Life, using a ceremony I wrote,
that was laden with good humor. I'd not have a "registrar" anywhere near
my own wedding.

Laws regarding marriage are often, how you say it, "fascinating". g

If you want the marriage to stand up in law (in the UK) you have to go
through certain formalities in appropriately licenced places, with
appropriately licenced people presiding over the ceremony. If you don't
do that, you are not legally married.

I understand, really I do. I lived in Texas at the time, and the law was
that you needed a license from the courthouse, and a blood test. It was
a simple legal and technical proceeding, completely unfraught with
moral, relgious, or just plain uptight over or undertones.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[hank alrich]

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:25:58 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

Imagine how humorus I find that, having been married by a friend who was
a minister in the Church of Universal Life, using a ceremony I wrote,
that was laden with good humor. I'd not have a "registrar" anywhere near
my own wedding.

If "registrar" means anything you DID have one - the minister, who in
your territory is obviously empowered to act as such.

You don't live in Texas, do you? g

The matter of marriage was/is one of getting the license, and a blood
test. It is a simple legal and technical proceeding. The typical
marriage "ceremony" is not a requirement.

Nonetheless, we had a ceremonial party. I wrote a script, our dear
friend and neighbor performed his duties as a minister of the Church of
Universal Life (a very few dollars gets one that ministerial title), and
we had a fabulous potluck dinner party in his front yard.

He wore a tuxedo jacket over which he draped a Peruvian shawl of many
bright and lovely colors, and he concluded the five-minute ceremony with
a bit of his own: he proclaimed, "And now, Holy Smokes!", reached into
an inside pocket of the jacket and pulled out a giant reefer rolled in
several of those rainbow-colored papers. It went well with his shawl.

Throughout he'd held a very official looking book in his hand. A friend
called out to him, "Is that The Good Book?" He held the book aloft and
replied, "Smoley's Tables of Slopes and Rises!", the original edition.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Paul Stamler]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
g.com...
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:25:58 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

Imagine how humorus I find that, having been married by a friend who
was
a minister in the Church of Universal Life, using a ceremony I wrote,
that was laden with good humor. I'd not have a "registrar" anywhere
near
my own wedding.

If "registrar" means anything you DID have one - the minister, who in
your territory is obviously empowered to act as such.


County governments offer the service of selling marriage
licences. Requires certain tests for disease, not much else.

Some marriages can be legal with out 'em. Not sure
how that works...

Well, there's common-law marriage; live with somebody for long enough and
you're married.

To return to the last off-topic topic, one of the reasons things in the
States are usually looser than in the UK is that we have no established
church in the US, whereas the UK does. Or -- wait, what about Registry
Office weddings in the UK? Hmm, more complex than I thought at first.

Peace,
Paul

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:59:42 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
wrote:

Some marriages can be legal with out 'em. Not sure
how that works...

Well, there's common-law marriage; live with somebody for long enough and
you're married.

Is that anything more than a myth where you are?

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne wrote:
wrote:

Some marriages can be legal with out 'em. Not sure
how that works...

Well, there's common-law marriage; live with somebody for long enough and
you're married.

Is that anything more than a myth where you are?

It is not a myth in most of the US, although in a lot of places you have to
actually say you are married and be heard by a third party. In California
it is easier than in most places to find yourself inadvertently married,
though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

Paul Stamler wrote:
Well, there's common-law marriage; live with somebody for long enough and
you're married.

Not in England & Wales you're not.

The sequence required is a declaration of intent to get married, the
advertisement of such a declaration to others, followed by a signing of
what amounts to an enforceable contract in writing in the presence of
witnesses, including the registrar of Births, Marriages & Deaths or
his/her representative. This representative may be a clergyman or other
person appointed for the purpose. After the signing of the register, you
are now legally married, all other celebrations are optional in this
country.

If the registrar has reason to believe there is a reason the 2 people
before him should not be married, or the ceremony is disrupted, he stops
it & there is no marriage. An appeal may be made in this case.

The procedure is similar in Scotland, but not identical.

So, if you're recording sound, videoing or photographing a wedding, it's
a very good idea here to consult the person conducting the ceremony, as
well as all other parties.

Just my 2 penn'orth from East of the Atlantic.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Paul Stamler]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:59:42 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
wrote:

Some marriages can be legal with out 'em. Not sure
how that works...

Well, there's common-law marriage; live with somebody for long enough and
you're married.

Is that anything more than a myth where you are?

No; Missouri does not recognize common-law marriage. But Illinois, just
across the river, does.

Peace,
Paul

[david correia]

In article ,
(hank alrich) wrote:

Nonetheless, we had a ceremonial party. I wrote a script, our dear
friend and neighbor performed his duties as a minister of the Church of
Universal Life (a very few dollars gets one that ministerial title), and
we had a fabulous potluck dinner party in his front yard.

He wore a tuxedo jacket over which he draped a Peruvian shawl of many
bright and lovely colors, and he concluded the five-minute ceremony with
a bit of his own: he proclaimed, "And now, Holy Smokes!", reached into
an inside pocket of the jacket and pulled out a giant reefer rolled in
several of those rainbow-colored papers. It went well with his shawl.

Throughout he'd held a very official looking book in his hand. A friend
called out to him, "Is that The Good Book?" He held the book aloft and
replied, "Smoley's Tables of Slopes and Rises!", the original edition.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam





You ****ing hippie.





David Correia ;
www.Celebrationsound.com

[[email protected]]

On Sep 30, 3:29 am, david correia wrote:
In article ,
(hank alrich) wrote:



Nonetheless, we had a ceremonial party. I wrote a script, our dear
friend and neighbor performed his duties as a minister of the Church of
Universal Life (a very few dollars gets one that ministerial title), and
we had a fabulous potluck dinner party in his front yard.

He wore a tuxedo jacket over which he draped a Peruvian shawl of many
bright and lovely colors, and he concluded the five-minute ceremony with
a bit of his own: he proclaimed, "And now, Holy Smokes!", reached into
an inside pocket of the jacket and pulled out a giant reefer rolled in
several of those rainbow-colored papers. It went well with his shawl.

Throughout he'd held a very official looking book in his hand. A friend
called out to him, "Is that The Good Book?" He held the book aloft and
replied, "Smoley's Tables of Slopes and Rises!", the original edition.

--


You ****ing hippie.

that was later, first nite of honeymoon!!!
but they probably were not virgins ... G

[hank alrich]

wrote:

On Sep 30, 3:29 am, david correia wrote:
In article ,
(hank alrich) wrote:



Nonetheless, we had a ceremonial party. I wrote a script, our dear
friend and neighbor performed his duties as a minister of the Church of
Universal Life (a very few dollars gets one that ministerial title), and
we had a fabulous potluck dinner party in his front yard.

He wore a tuxedo jacket over which he draped a Peruvian shawl of many
bright and lovely colors, and he concluded the five-minute ceremony with
a bit of his own: he proclaimed, "And now, Holy Smokes!", reached into
an inside pocket of the jacket and pulled out a giant reefer rolled in
several of those rainbow-colored papers. It went well with his shawl.

Throughout he'd held a very official looking book in his hand. A friend
called out to him, "Is that The Good Book?" He held the book aloft and
replied, "Smoley's Tables of Slopes and Rises!", the original edition.

--


You ****ing hippie.

that was later, first nite of honeymoon!!!
but they probably were not virgins ... G

LOL! We had three children by the time we married, and they all were a
wonderful part of the ceremony. We knett together and they annoited us
with water sprinkled from salt shakers.

I think david nailed it. g

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar