Use of Microphones on Broadway- Page 1

[pinoyidol2006]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 4:24pm

I was watching some videos, and it didn't occur to me that the use of microphones in Broadway shows was the least bit controversial. I've never seen a Broadway musical unmiked, but I have seen straight plays unmiked in my university. I now wish I had really taken in the experience of an unmiked show so that I can have an opinion of unmiked vs. miked shows. So, I'm wonder what are your thoughts on this issue?

I am aware there is another thread on this board similar to this subject but that one kind of drowned in five pages of "Clay Aiken is gay" discussions (which was entertaining).

[fingerlakessinger]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 4:46pm

Personally, I find being miked is MUCH more suitable.
I have done several straight plays, and all but one I was not miked. I found it very difficult to be able to find a wider range of dynamics in terms of speaking my lines...as in during some intense one-on-one scenes, I still had to remember to project to the back rows, so I had to find a even playing ground of volume. I know that for some that may seem silly, but the play where I was miked I found to be a lot more stress-free and I was able to play a bit more. Musicals its obviously a given cuz the band will blow you away in the quieter bits of music.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 5:03pm

In the age of non-miked musicals the scores were orchestrated quite differently than they are now to allow the singers to be heard. I would really love to see a show like that to know how it compares to what we are used to today.

[newintown]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 5:10pm

In the theatre, acoustic sound will always be superior to electronically amplified sound, whether music or speech.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 5:24pm

It was so nice to hear an unmiced verion of Finian's Rainbow a few years back, at the Irish Rep.
I remember just how nuanced and beautiful the voices were not having to be amplified and remixed. Of course they are a very small house and the "Orchestra" was comprised of two pianos.

Realized at The Normal Heart that unmiced 'straight plays' fall prey to the sound of the theatre's air conditioning units.

[CONAries]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 5:38pm

Genrally speaking microphones should be used in musicals due to the orchestra, however, I personally feel there is no reason why ANY play should use microphones! Any trained actor should be able to project their voice throughout a theatre.

[ahhrealmonsters]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 5:44pm

When I saw August: Osage at the Music Box, I could barely hear a word of the opening monologue, and I was sitting mid-orchestra.

[hpeabody930]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 5:55pm

I think most plays today use some sort of floor mics or overhead mics to project the sound a bit, but personally, I MUCH prefer un-miced performances. I feel so much more of the intimacy of live performance. Mics, I feel, add an extra wall between the actors and the audience.

[raulmark]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 6:39pm

Miked is the best choice. Nobody wants to go to a un-miked show...even if they favor it. it's like those fools who say "LP's are better than CD's" No, they are not. Get over it and move on....
I don't care what patty luPone says, I want to HEAR the singers.
As long as it's not BLASTEd and used correctly

[Dollypop]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 7:01pm

I'm including a link to an interview I did with Boyd Gaines in which he makes some excellent points about the use of amplification in the theater
Boyd Gaines/The Grand Manner

[Dave13]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 7:28pm

While I understand the traditionalists prefer unmiked performances, miked performances are superior.

One specific example I can think of when it is almost impossible to project, is in a situation when a couple is talking softly or whispering to each other. It would be impossible to project a whisper to an entire crowd without it taking away from the performance.

However, one thing that bothers me is when I believe they are altering the performer's voice. I watched Phantom a few years ago, and I swear they were using equipment to improve the singing of the performer.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 8:42pm

My biggest complaint with amplification is that is blurs the words.
I saw that revival of LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS and could not understand one word--not one word the urchins sang. Yet I heard every single word in DEATH TAKES A HOLIDAY.

I think the younger generation hears differently than older folks.

[lizliz]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 8:53pm

The WSJ blog had an interesting article about this a couple years ago... the chart showing all the hidden microphones in Brighton Beach Memoirs was fascinating! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487153079350302.html

They also talk about the use of pre-recorded backing tracks in shows, including Phantom.

[Dave13]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 10:01pm

Thanks for posting that link. I think the use of backing tracks certainly should be banned in shows. The whole point of going to shows is seeing a live performance.

It won't be long before an entire performance is back tracked or lip synced.

Updated On: 7/7/11 at 10:01 PM

[chewy5000]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 10:35pm

Does the orchestra need to be amplified though? I was at a show last week, 4th row, and all I could hear was the speakers. It can ruin the sound.

[pinoyidol2006]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 11:27pm

I definitely don't want the orchestra amplified. I also don't want any kind of vocal alterations of any kind for the performers.

But yeah, I'm still really curious how actors would whisper or speak softly in the absence of a microphone. I would love to have been in a theater where the entire audience was so focused and silent.

As for Patti, they should turn down her mic. I feel that an amplified Patti Lupone would be a nightmare.

Has anyone here been to Broadway Unplugged?

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 11:38pm

Sometimes you have to amplify the orchestra, seeing as they are not always in the pit or in a place where they could be heard, or may not all be there. If I remember correctly the percussion for Fosse was set up in a dressing room and, at least in Toronto, the band for Jersey Boys was also isolated in their own room under the stage where they would never be heard with amplification. And with the advent of electronic instruments, be it synths or guitars or whatnot, it would create an odd mix for those sounds to be coming from the speakers while all the other sound came solely from the pit if they weren't all amplified.

[ahhrealmonsters]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 12:27am

There also can be a bit of a delay. When I saw South Pacific, I was in the front row orchestra, right behind the speaker. There was a half-second delay (or it seemed that way from where I was sitting), and it was soooooooo irritating.

[CONAries]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 3:03am

Another reason to amplify the orchestra is that each instrument plays to a different volume, you need the microphones to mix the sound!

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 6:16am

This is a subject dear to me. When I started going to the theatre in 1951, miking was seldom used. The audience could hear the dialogue because of the actors' good projection and because the audience was very quiet and concentrated much more than is prevalent today.

Someone mentioned that orchestrations were written to take into account the fact that microphones were not used in musicals in the first half of the 20h Century. While it makes sense, I don't believe that it is true. Orchestrators were interested in the sound that different instruments make. It is up to the pit conductor to balance the loudness or softness of their musicians according to the vocal abilities of the singers on stage. Ethel Merman surely did not have to worry about the brassiness of "Blow, Gabriel, Blow" from ANYTHING GOES. Trained theatre singers could project over the orchestra.

My complaint of amplified muicals used to be the harshness and distortion of sound coming from the stage. Even as recently as the Patti LuPone GYPSY, there was distortion of sound at the conclusion of "Everything's Coming Up Roses" as LuPone swooped the final notes, a typical affectation of so many of today's singers that annoys the hell out of me.

I can still remember going to 42ND STREET at the Winter Gardwn in 1980 and sitting close enough to the stage to be able to hear the dialogue and singing straight fom the stage and not though speakers. What a treat. I had the same experience recently at HOW TO SUCCEED...when I sat in the fourth row orchestra and could hear much of the dialogue straight from the stage.

I will admit that sound design has improved over the years and there have been recent shows where I have heard a very natural sound originating from the stage. And even as far back as 1987, when I saw FOLLIES in London, the sound system was excellent. I remember getting a kick out of checking out the sound control booth at intermission and seeing that each instrument in the orchestra had its separate volume slide switch! Yes, pit orchestras are all amplified, too.

I am horrified to learn that some shows allow vocal tracks of pre-recorded singing to be used while the actors lip-synch the lyrics. That is really going too far!

[MariusPontmercy]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 9:16am

Genuine question since I've not seen a play on Broadway, but have seen many in the West End: are mikes commonly used for plays (as opposed to musicals) on Broadway?

Aside from a few plays like War Horse that make very heavy use of music and sound effects, I'm struggling to think of very many plays that I've seen that have been miked, unless you count the odd moment done for effect - for example the ghost in the National Theatre's Hamlet, or Derek Jacobi's Lear in the storm scene. And frankly, dialogue does sound a lot better unmiked. Good actors with proper vocal training can easily be heard without amplification, even in a large theatre. And I'm not convinced for a minute that this means there is less potential for dynamic range in the performances. Projecting isn't shouting, and it's perfectly possible to "whisper" and be heard from the back of the balcony.

Different matter with musicals, and I can see why they do feel the need to mike them. Though I loved seeing the production of Iolanthe recently at Wilton's Music Hall in East London, a lovely 400-seat Victorian venue. The cast was unmiked and it sounded glorious (though they only had a grand piano to compete with).

There's also another problem with miking that I noticed when I saw Lord of the Flies at the Open Air Theatre in Regent's Park a few weeks ago. The noise of the wind in the trees would have made projection very difficult, so they were wise to amplify the voices, but I was sitting about twelve rows back and when there were lots of people on stage it often took a moment to figure out who was talking! Updated On: 7/8/11 at 09:16 AM

[julesboogie]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 1:22pm

"There's also another problem with miking that I noticed when I saw Lord of the Flies at the Open Air Theatre in Regent's Park a few weeks ago. The noise of the wind in the trees would have made projection very difficult, so they were wise to amplify the voices, but I was sitting about twelve rows back and when there were lots of people on stage it often took a moment to figure out who was talking!"

Sounds like a staging issue more than a mics thing.


I guess ill chalk it up to being a product of the mic'ed generation, but im all for them. For me its not about being trained well enough to hit the back wall with your voice. The amplification adds the opportunity (seldom used, but none the less) for unique/non traditional voices to be heard. We've moved away from the super healthy legit singing of the golden age (that allowed for that), and moved on to a more modern/rock sound. Voices like Daphne Rubin Vega (sp), Reeve Carney, and other lighter instruments would not reach the back row...and if they did i highly doubt it would happen consistently 8 times a week (or healthily for that matter). The only other option would be to change their technique... and thus the uniqueness (of their voices) in my opinion. The mics have given us the opportunity to make any kind of show we want without limitations of natural acoustics.

As far as plays go i still like em. For me it does add more of a realistic quality to it. People just dont talk in real life like they do in un-amplified plays. The nuance can (isnt always, but can) be lost. Are there actors who can make me forget the training...ABSOLUTELY! But as a poster said earlier, it just gives a brilliantly trained actor more room to play when they arent made to project. Even when mic'ed actors are still using that training. Most plays ive seen, hardly turn the mics up to a noticeable level...just a bit of support for those smaller moments. Its a nice dynamic.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 3:12pm

I actually don't mind amplification in shows today when it's done well. I prefer it for the simple reason that it allows for more subtlety and variation in a vocal performance, whether it be a play or musical. Ballads used to be loud and up-tempos louder. That was the range. Just listen to Merman or Martin sing the slow stuff on their recordings (Moonshine Lullabye or The Sound of Music), and you hear "tender" singing at healthy decibels. Now, singers can whisper if desired, and it's heard.

Amplification has also come a long way in the past 20 years. When I saw Evita, I remember all the snap, crackle and pop of Eva's body mic whenever she changed costumes (which was a lot). I remember the static and the dropped signals, too. And the tinny sounds they produced. Much of that has changed, and it continues to improve.

What I DON'T like about it are the clunky wires or hand-held mics used in shows today. I know it was a concept in Spring Awakening, but I found it annoying more than anything else. And those wrap-around wires are the worst. I keep thinking the performers are trying to sell me a set of encyclopedias over their headsets. It's not any more "cool looking" than a chin-strap would be for a wig. I don't need to see the technical stuff in my face. I get it ... your mic'd. Good for you.

I also don't like it when shows are over-amplified, like when they raise the volume to "eleven" for every Elphaba I've ever seen when she rides the cherry-picker. I don't think, "wow, she can really belt," because she isn't actually singing any louder than she was two minutes ago.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 3:16pm

P.S. -- I do remember that the last revival of "The Most Happy Fella" was without amplification. The one with the two-piano accompaniment. At least it was when it played pre-Broadway in Los Angeles. And it was pretty wonderful to experience. But with just two pianos and a smaller theatre (the Doolittle), they could pull it off without issues. I do remember everyone in the audience leaning forward a great deal during the show. At least it pulled them in (literally).

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 5:02pm

"Another reason to amplify the orchestra is that each instrument plays to a different volume, you need the microphones to mix the sound!"

At least some conductors — Ted Sperling, for example — hate the fact that they work hard to create the proper balances and to create the right sound and then it's often altered (and screwed up) by the sound person.

If you go to an unamplified concert with orchestra, a good conductor makes sure that you hear what you should hear. Conductors also manage this at the opera, with the orchestra in the pit (and usually a much bigger orchestra at that).

Amplification is important in musicals, but it's gotten way out of hand, even though with the increase in ambient noise (also from the huge increase in the number of lighting instruments used nowadays), more is probably necessary than in the past.