For the trained singers or anyone in the know...Is 8 shows a week too much for your voice?

[bobby_luvs_bway]

Posted: 8/5/09 at 7:36pm

I was following a thread on the West End board about Connie Fisher (the How Do You Solve A Problem Like Maria? gal). The debate being that 8 shows a week in The Sound of Music is too taxing for any performer (some making the arguement that it's too taxing in any show). What would the educated among you say?

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 8/5/09 at 7:45pm

This depends entirely on the show and the difficulty of the role.

It also will depend on the performer. Some people are truly blessed with seemingly superhuman vocal stamina.

But, no, in most cases I don't feel that 8 shows a week is too much for a performer. In fact, I know some theaters (the Tony Award winning Children's Theater Company in Minneapolis as an example) that will do 10 and sometimes 12 shows a week. It does require diligence from the performer in maintaining both proper technique and overall health.

[Taryn]

Posted: 8/5/09 at 7:48pm

For some shows, yes. Sometimes the role is just too taxing, and you get things like having another actor always play the matinees. But for the most part, I'd say no, as long as proper vocal technique and health is used.

[bobby_luvs_bway]

Posted: 8/5/09 at 7:50pm

thanks colleen. i thought it does seem to be an all too frequent excuse these days, but i don't know enough about that type of training to say. the west end folks seemed down on connie because she had trained for 3 years and was missing tons of performances.

[bwaylvsong]

Posted: 8/5/09 at 7:51pm

It totally depends on the individuals. Some people couldn't do it with all the training in the world, while others can do it with no training whatsoever. Training always helps, though. It also depends on the show and role. It's much easier to last while singing mid-range than it is while belting high.

[bobby_luvs_bway]

Posted: 8/5/09 at 7:54pm

i know some shows are real killers (Evita for example), so they have to have an alternate. I didn't think Maria in Sound of Music was one of those roles.

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 8/5/09 at 8:40pm

I don't know how the women who have portrayed AIDA could've done that role 8 times a week... i always thought there should've been an alternate... but those women have some powerhouse voices!

[dramarama2]

Posted: 8/5/09 at 8:46pm

By today's standards, I don't think 8 shows a week is too bad. Opera on the other hand...

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 8/5/09 at 9:17pm

I will repeat on here what i said over on our West End thread

I did 8 shows a week for years, yes it can be a strain on the voice and after remaing with a show for a long time it can become a little too much, but thats the job!

Doctors can work over 20 hrs a day, having to save lives etc, performers do a few hrs a night.
Most performers will feel strain on their voices in to a long run, but its the off stage (how you take care of your voices that count)

It all comes down to training as well, when someone like Connie who won a reality show walks in to a west end show and proclaims 'i can do 8 shows a week' well she should know what you are getting yourself in to.

I think most performers who start from the bottom up (ensemble work) get to train their voices and their bodies that way, your stamina grows with every show

Of course some shows are more vocally demanding and sometimes you are going to have to call out sick, but most times performers just get on with it.

I performed through flu, broken fingers, broken toe, sore throat etc, but you get through it. If its to much you take a persoanl day and thats fine

People like Connie however had lengthy amounts of time off due to her going in to the west end in a lead role, through a reality show, without having built up her stamina first.

I think if perfomers get the chance to have an alternate then they will take it (they would be stupid not too) but most time that 3 hrs a night is really not that bad

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 8/5/09 at 9:30pm

The question reminds me of a story about Ezio Pinza when he was doing South Pacific. Apparently, he was willing to do the show on the guarantee that the total amount of singing time for 8 performances be no more than the total amount of singing time for singing two performances a week at the Met. I've heard that he was scrupulous that his demands be met. Ergo, Emile has two solos, several truncated reprises and one duet (the last of which is no vocal killer).

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 8/5/09 at 9:40pm

I have to agree with songanddance man re: taking care of your whole body and your voice off-stage. I know I'd have a very tough time resting my voice off-stage the way it would need to be if I ever wanted to sing professionally.

[proptart101]

Posted: 8/5/09 at 9:41pm

My wife is a classically trained singer (New England Conservatory) and her warm up and reh. regimen is quite strict, even for a voice lesson.

Having worked on B'way for the last 15- 20 years, I can say that the majority of B'way singers do not give their warmups enough attention, at least as far as I have seen and heard. Not unlike a dancer, athlete or any other physical performer, a B'way singer must properly warm up and cool down their voices, as well as the rest of their bodies, in order to be able to do their performances that many times each week.

I can't tell you how many young people I've seen approach this career casually and, after a few years in various chorus roles, "suddenly" be unable to hit those high notes or keep their voices clean over a week's worth of singing. Of course, the "party hearty after every show" mentality does not help.

There are the blessed few who are gifted with "chords of steel," but, by and large, I can tell who's in it for the long run vs. who will be seeking another career path within a few weeks of watching them do their warmups or listening to their voices during matinees.

I have no idea what is being taught in various schools these days, but, respect for your chords and how to keep them limber for a long career seems to be not nearly as important as how to find that "American Idol" moment...

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 8/5/09 at 9:49pm

I know a lot of people aren't fans of hers, but I have to say that it sounds like Patti LuPone takes excellent care of her voice and body when she's in a show. She says she doesn't talk all day before a performance, gets lots of sleep, and stretches in her dressing room. And I've never seen her when she was in bad voice, so I guess it's working.

[dayao]

Posted: 8/6/09 at 6:37am

It is not as much of an issue with today's heavily miked shows which includes body miking all the principal singers. Under these conditions performing live 8 times a week is not at all taxing and the majority of shows sound so homogenized that the performers could lip synch and the audience wouldn't know the difference as the sound rarely appears to come from the stage. Ezio Pinza, Mary Martin & everyone in the original 1949 production of South Pacific sang acoustically and the only mikes used were at the foot of the stage to sweeten the sound in the larger theatres that had become the norm for Broadway. The sound still appeared to come from the stage and sounded live. Paolo Szot, Kelli O'Hara and the cast of the current production of South Pacific are body miked and can appear to sound loud without even trying or taxing their voices.

In fact, all Broadway shows prior to the late 1940's, including Oklahoma & Carousel, were totally acoustic, just like opera, and the actors and singers had to be well trained to project their speaking and singing voices, similar to opera singers. Most of the performers in theater up to the late 1970's also understood and practiced something that is almost unheard of in today's live theater: the craft of acting and singing. This is not to say that there are not any good singers today, there are a lot of talented performers in today's theater; they just are not as good as the singers of the past because the standards have been lowered by today's producers to the extent that performers are not required to be as well trained to meet the needs of today's heavily miked theater.

Updated On: 8/6/09 at 06:37 AM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 8/6/09 at 9:12am

EdMottershead, I've heard that story too. The character of Emile has 14 minutes of singing in the whole show.

[dshnookie]

Posted: 8/6/09 at 9:13am

With recent shows considered:

If you're Laura Bell Bundy and singing more than half the score 8x a week (Legally Blonde) .. probably.

If you're Karen Olivo or anyone in WSS, who barely has a single song to themselves to carry .. highly doubtful.

[philcrosby]

Posted: 8/6/09 at 9:15am

People for whom eight shows a week was not too much:

Ethel Merman
Mary Martin
Robert Preston
Alfred Drake
Carol Channing
Chita Rivera
Angela Lansbury
Lauren Bacall
Katharine Hepburn

.... hmm, I am seeing a trend here.

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 8/6/09 at 9:20am

philcrosby, I agree with the suggestion that actors from Broadway's Golden Age seemed to be more up to the task of performing than some actors now, but there are definitely actors performing today who can clearly handle the 8 show a week schedule. Michael Cerveris is a name that comes to mind: he was never out while in Sweeney. Actually, I can't think of any time I read about him missing a performance. There are also actors who might be able to do 8 shows a week, but the precedent is that their role has an alternate (such as actresses playing Eva or Christine).

[BroadwayBound062]

Posted: 8/6/09 at 9:42am

For me personally, when I am doing 8 shows a week and its a vocally challenging show there are times where I have to "play it safe" in order to save my voice for the next show. When I played Radames in Aida its a very taxing role vocally and there are some riffs and extra high notes I would normally sing but if I had to sing the show again the day or 2 times the next day sometimes I didn't sing them. But again it depended on the day completely. Most days I'd say 7 out of 8 shows I'd sing it. Training especially breathing is the most important things for endurance in shows. Luckily for me I have a lot of opera training which has really helped me because some of the operas I have been in have been 3-4 hours long and I played the lead in 2, 4 hour long operas, so learning endurance is something that has come over time. But for each role/person it is different.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/6/09 at 10:14am

New shows are MUCH more demanding on the vocalist then they once were. The amount of songs, the demands of the music are all MUCH more taxing than the days of "the Golden Age". Mics are being used BECAUSE the demands are heavier in an effort to assist the performer in saving their voice.

Do all performers take care of themselves as they should? Probably not. But that goes along with the increasing younger performer.

[fgreene1938]

Posted: 8/6/09 at 10:20am

Training is an absolute must over the long haul of a career because 8 shows a week can due gradual damage to the Reliable performers know that proper rest, proper nutrition and hydration and conserving the voice (i.e., not doing a lot of talking om performance days) are essentials. Ethel Merman said that doing a Broadway musical is "like taking the veil" because you have to focus your life on doing 8 shows a week. And Merman was reknowned for never missing a performance. Nowadays, less dedicated performers miss shows willy-nilly because the commitment and professionalism isn't there.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 8/6/09 at 10:52am

I once read something in which Barbara Cook said she'd usually lose her voice by the end of each performance of Candide.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/6/09 at 11:09am

Songs used to be tailored to specific performers. They were written with their vocal abilities, or lack thereof, in mind. They weren't just set in comfortable keys.

Also, most Broadway stars weren't asked to SING. They were asked to perform. Very few were judged on vocal ability alone. (Zero Mostel? Carol Channing? Yul Brynner?)

Today, few Broadway shows are written with performers in mind. They're hoping for long runs and a revolving nameless/faceless cast. The show is the only real star. And the current trend in theatre music is to have singers screeching at the top of their ranges. The words "alto" and "baritone" have all but been removed from dictionary for leading characters. But a high tenor or belting soprano seems to get the fans clapping and standing on their feet. Not acting. Not interpreting a song. Not personality.

So eight shows a week of extremely high belted notes, or sustained "yelling" can do a lot of damage.

It's Broadway that has changed. Not the stamina of the performers.

[bobby_luvs_bway]

Posted: 8/6/09 at 12:27pm

Thanks everyone. I appreciate all your input and personal stories. I didn't want to bash any particular performer.

Best12- That makes the most sense to me. The roles,these days, seem to require more singers with big loud screechy voices than subtle actor/singers.

[beagle]

Posted: 8/6/09 at 6:20pm

First a quick clarification about Connie Fisher. She didn't keep missing a ton of performances--she did 8 shows a week for close to three months and then got a bad cold which made her miss some shows, which finally led to a vocal injury. She was then out two weeks to recover, and when she came back into the show she was reduced to 6 shows per week and stayed with the show for another year, missing very few shows after she came back from the injury.

About the general issue, I think it depends. I was talking to a singer friend of mine recently about how a lot of musical theatre peformers do 8 shows per week, and she sounded slightly horrified. She's mostly trained in opera, though, and I don't think opera singers do 8 shows per week. I think that proper training does help people prepare to sing lots of shows, but there are lots of other factors that contribute to whether a performer can do 8 shows a week or even 6. There are many performers today who only do 6, but others who do 8.

I don't know if the lists of "golden age" performers who rarely missed shows is really that helpful, because there are also performers like Julie Andrews who ended up with wrecked voices. I think a lot of it depends on how people are built. Some people seem to have cast-iron vocal cords while others don't, and I don't think that this makes the ones who can do 8 shows without wrecking their voices better than those who can't. There are some very talented and wonderful performers who don't do 8 shows a week regularly, and I don't think they should be disqualified from doing musical theatre. Many parts have a standby or alternate these days, and I don't see that as a bad thing. It may even be better because it gives more people a chance to perform the lead roles, and it also helps save the voices of those in the main part.