Bill
Well-Known Member
TomDsAncs said:A singing section... Something we slated them lot for doing... Now we're doing one ourselves. Comical
not even subtle.
TomDsAncs said:A singing section... Something we slated them lot for doing... Now we're doing one ourselves. Comical
wearethesouthstand said:Singing section is just a term the papers will use when doing an article its all they know.
Its actually a reconfiguration of singers that are already dotted about the stadium who have been split up after various moves.
Its nothing new. We've always had a singing area...it was called The Kippax and that didn't do bad did it.
It's just how it's labelled by the media.
City1974 said:wearethesouthstand said:Singing section is just a term the papers will use when doing an article its all they know.
Its actually a reconfiguration of singers that are already dotted about the stadium who have been split up after various moves.
Its nothing new. We've always had a singing area...it was called The Kippax and that didn't do bad did it.
It's just how it's labelled by the media.
The Manchester Evening News have final picked up on the suggested idea by the 1894 group
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...l-news/man-city-supporters-group-want-8476003
Hope come the start of next season the new South Stand is full of partisan home noise and colour.
TomDsAncs said:A singing section... Something we slated them lot for doing... Now we're doing one ourselves. Comical
jrb said:TomDsAncs said:A singing section... Something we slated them lot for doing... Now we're doing one ourselves. Comical
1 post.
Rag!
Eccles Blue said:jrb said:TomDsAncs said:A singing section... Something we slated them lot for doing... Now we're doing one ourselves. Comical
1 post.
Rag!
But he does have a point. And before you accuse me of also being a rag, I am just saying that people have slated them. So why accuse him of being a rag because it happens to be his first post? Some people just read the posts and don't join us but then something spikes their interest and they do. That's how I came to be on here. I'd been reading the forums for quite a few months before I plucked up the courage to post. (de niro & Ric probably wish I'd stayed just reading!!) ;-)
Look it his first post and he comes on to have a dig .let get the facts right we have had a singing section since we moved to the Etihad the 1894 lads are just trying to make it biggerEccles Blue said:jrb said:TomDsAncs said:A singing section... Something we slated them lot for doing... Now we're doing one ourselves. Comical
1 post.
Rag!
But he does have a point. And before you accuse me of also being a rag, I am just saying that people have slated them. So why accuse him of being a rag because it happens to be his first post? Some people just read the posts and don't join us but then something spikes their interest and they do. That's how I came to be on here. I'd been reading the forums for quite a few months before I plucked up the courage to post. (de niro & Ric probably wish I'd stayed just reading!!) ;-)
Cheadle_hulmeBlue said:Just curious how many people have registered an interest in this
Bembeltown said:Good job guys, even german football magazine http://www.faszination-fankurve.de picks up your story and has an article about the singing section. :)
been discussed before pretty sure the old stadium roof had sound deadning in for the commonwealth games .think it might of been worsley that posted it ?Didsbury Dave said:Something which occurred to me last night:
Does anyone from 1894 (or wherever) know if the club are making any consideration for sound reflection/acoustics in the roofing of the new stand? I would hope they are because I believe there is a significant difference in different materials.
I have a hope that the new angle of the roof might impact that: one of the reasons that the two singing areas can't hear each other is the way the existing roof reflects the sound. The way the roof slopes downwards might lend itself to singing bouncing down from the back of the stand.
Didsbury Dave said:Something which occurred to me last night:
Does anyone from 1894 (or wherever) know if the club are making any consideration for sound reflection/acoustics in the roofing of the new stand? I would hope they are because I believe there is a significant difference in different materials.
I have a hope that the new angle of the roof might impact that: one of the reasons that the two singing areas can't hear each other is the way the existing roof reflects the sound. The way the roof slopes downwards might lend itself to singing bouncing down from the back of the stand.
wearethesouthstand said:Didsbury Dave said:Something which occurred to me last night:
Does anyone from 1894 (or wherever) know if the club are making any consideration for sound reflection/acoustics in the roofing of the new stand? I would hope they are because I believe there is a significant difference in different materials.
I have a hope that the new angle of the roof might impact that: one of the reasons that the two singing areas can't hear each other is the way the existing roof reflects the sound. The way the roof slopes downwards might lend itself to singing bouncing down from the back of the stand.
yes mate we did mail the suggestion. At a meeting 4 years ago some of us (then blue alliance) asked danny wilson if we could put metal plates under roof of stand to amplify noise and keep it in. Was told council own the ground and nothing could be done.
we did send a reminder of this recently. Asked for amplification of level 1 ss and in the City bit and also in the other bit 110 111 and 211 as they are isolated but also can be noisy and the idea is that 115 can hear them and vice versa.
No response so far