Backstage pictures with Ashley Parker Angel at Hairspray

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 4:36pm

here. Updated On: 2/2/07 at 04:36 PM

[purpleprince101]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 4:47pm

doesn't show up

[Link Larkin Wanabe]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 4:52pm

I actually really like the fact that he has huge hair too. It shows that not just girls were hairhoppers.

Akiva

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 5:02pm

It should work now.

[theaterdude87]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 5:10pm

I like it a lot. How come no official announcement on Alexa Vega has been made?

[sidneybruhl]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 5:16pm

Cute pics. Thanks for posting.

[purpleprince101]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 5:18pm

nice. well, good job announcing alexa was in hairspray! Thnaks for the heads up

[TWSFan4Ever]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 5:20pm

Well I wouldn't have known about Alexa's official announcement if not for that post...thanks! Great pics

[mrs felciano]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 7:11pm

I used to have the biggest crush on him. He's a cutie.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 7:32pm

Why is T.R. Knight on the homepage for the stage notes?

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 7:46pm

Why aren't mics hidden in wigs anymore? I'm tired of seeing them like huge zits on people's heads.

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 8:14pm

"Why aren't mics hidden in wigs anymore? I'm tired of seeing them like huge zits on people's heads."

That bothers me too. It just looks weird.

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 8:32pm

It seems overly "there" in those pictures because it bothered me too.

[ClumsyDude15]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 8:44pm

his picture outside the theater is better, but those were pretty cute especially him and Diana.

[mateo]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 8:47pm

very cute! Thats alotta hair.

[dirty rotten guy]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 9:08pm

Looks better suited to play Corny Collins to me...

[jonartdesigns]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 9:34pm

i think the mics would be less scramingly obvious if the screens were being instead of black. but seriously they could majorly pull those up and not have much difference in audio

[lifeisacabaret]

Posted: 2/3/07 at 5:45am

Im afraid that rather shows a misunderstanding of how audio design in the theatre works.

The distance of the microphone depends on a number of things, the most prevalent to this discussion being the overall volume of the show.

Now, in a show like WSS, which is generally not very loud, theres going to be less for the radio microphone to compete with, and so it will require less gain-before-feedback (more on that later) and can be mounted further away from the sound source (the mouth of the performer).

However, Hairspray is a loud show overall, and so there is more for the radio mics to compete with, and therefore more GBF is required, so the microphones have to be mounted closer to the sound source.

Higher Gain before feedback means that you can apply more of the signal into the signal-path in the desk without creating audio-feedback, thus creating a fuller, less distorted, more natural sound.

It should also be noted that some people simply have bigger foreheads, and so the mic is always going to be more prominent than might otherwise be so if their forehead was smaller. With a larger forehead, the hairline of hair (or wigs) is further back/up, and so too would the microphone be, but to create a better sound, it is mounted further down the forehead.

Sometimes, microphone placement is a total non-issue- the Phantom in TPOTO for example, has literally nowhere else than his left ear/cheek for his microphones, because of the mask and facial deformities.

Hats also cause a LOT of problems for radio mics, due to the reflections of the sound from the hat feeding back into the mic and creating a 'muddy' sound. Thus, in productions with the budget, anyone who wears a hat will have a separate mic and transmitter mounted in their hat (Elphaba's hat in Wicked for example).

Microphone placement in the theatre is all about creating the best sound with the minimal visual intrusion, and due to other external factors (big foreheads, wigs, hats etc etc) sometimes compromises have to be made.

Edit: the screens (called caps) are actually silver on that model of microphone (the Sennheiser MKE-2) but on many mics, they are totally flesh-coloured (certainly the DPA 4061, which is the most widely-used mic in theatre).
Updated On: 2/3/07 at 05:45 AM

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 2/3/07 at 10:59am

Thank you for the very well written explanation.

Also, another factor, is the wig lace, etc.. sometimes i have seen instances where wig lace or bangs on the wig rub against the mic and the sound is NOT pretty...

There are SOO many factors in mic placement. I wish people understood the necessity of the 'evil'.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 2/3/07 at 11:03am

Then the shows are all getting louder, because it seems recently there has been a rash of mics that are so prominent as to be a distraction.

"I wish people understood the necessity of the 'evil'."

bg2, I was working in the Broadway theater while you were in diapers, so drop the attitude.

[lifeisacabaret]

Posted: 2/3/07 at 11:28am

It's a combination of costumes, general volume increase, wigs, and total coincidence.


Edit: Most of the time when someone considers a mic to be particularly visible could be down to one very important thing: double-miking for back-ups, and conflicts with costumes/wigs due to this.

Now, the best option is to have your back-up mic in a different (but equally sweet-sounding) place than the main mic, but sometimes the only other option for back-up placement is extremely unfavourable (ie, over the ear) so the back-up mic is placed next to the main mic, which will obviously make more of a visual intrusion. Unless you want leads to stop wearing back-up mics, and thus to be submissant to the fact that you might lose their audio feed, this is unavoidable, but frankly, its hardly an imposition and very few people are bothered by it. Updated On: 2/3/07 at 11:28 AM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 2/3/07 at 11:34am

Thanks, life. I can't help thinking as I watch shows lately, aren't we supposed to be progressing? Shouldn't mics be less noticeable than they used to be instead of more?

[lifeisacabaret]

Posted: 2/3/07 at 11:45am

Indeed, but the technology can only get so small before it becomes a) too expensive to produce and therefore buy and b) before it sounds terrible.

The fact remains that a mic closer to the source of the sound will sound better than one farther away, and this, among with myriad other factors, competes with wardrobe and wigs for good placement.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 2/3/07 at 11:49am

Is forehead better placement than, say, cheek or jawline? It just seems to be right front and center more than ever.

I wonder if people that aren't bothered as much are those who are newer theatergoers and don't have the experience of mics being less prominent.

Updated On: 2/3/07 at 11:49 AM

[lifeisacabaret]

Posted: 2/3/07 at 11:57am

Forehead is by far the best placement option. For one thing, its not to the side, and for another, the resonance of the skull bone is more sonically acceptable than the resonance of the cheekbone.

Id say that since people got used to radio mics during the years when they were almost exclusively placed over the ear, its now more acceptable for them to be more centrally placed on the forehead, where the sound is infinitely better, and over time during a show they fade out of view to the audience.

The resonance of the bone under whichever skin surface the mic is placed on is suprisingly important- i once knew of a singer who sounded great in the show they were in...then they had maxillofacial surgery which removed part of the cheekbone and replaced it with titanium place. The costume had to be altered so the previously impossible forehead placement became possible, due to the effects of the change to their physiology making so much difference.