Distracting Mikes on Performers — Page 2

"Sounds like you would really enjoy... The Opera." If that was an attempt to insult me or categorize me, it didn't work.


Not in the least. I love the opera. As a matter of fact, my father was a conductor and my show biz "career" started as a babe in arms falling asleep at his opening nights.
If the sight of a microphone so offends you, perhaps you should do as another poster suggested and sit further back where they aren't so noticeable or stay home. To use your bias to denigrate the talents of hundreds of accomplished theater professionals is, where have I heard this before, bitter and ill-informed.

I enjoy work that must use a mic just as much as those that don't, but the mic has become a crutch - a way for lesser talent to inflict their "talents" upon us. That being said, opera is no better or worse than broadway as far as a genre or discipline - plenty of bad "waste my time" opera to be sure.


Don't get me wrong, I'm no great champion of actors. I've been heard to remark more than once that the only reason so-and-so was cast was because it was 5:00 on Friday and the creatives had 6:00 dinner reservations, but for every one of them there were 20 or 30 talented hard working professionals who sacrificed nights, weekends and holidays with family to entertain elitist snobs who didn't know any better.

But you must admit that it took real powerhouse talent to do broadway before mics were used. Many performers now could not be heard past the orchestra much less the first row and composers have now composed work on broadway knowing they have the mic crutch for back up and uninspired music and lyrics. There are professionals in every field well qualified, but that doesn't mean that the day-to-day staff is capable of what a designer is and I don't think the designers work every show. You have your points and are far and away looking to a bright new "electronic" world but electronics do not replace real talent - born with not manufactured :)

No, it didn't. I think if you looked into it you'd find orchestras were bigger, ensembles bigger, and there weren't 1200-1800 seat houses. And it sucked to sit in the last row of the balcony. Modern sound reinforcement was pretty much invented in the last twenty years by folks who were designing when this years crop of Tony nominees were still mixing. I'll admit a bias as it's my profession but IMHO, today's techniques have made for more consistent enjoyable experience for a larger number of people. They have enhanced the theater experience for millions, not detracted from it. As has the fact that not everyone has to have the pipes of Ethel Merman to do a credible, entertaining job in a Broadway production anymore. If that gets the elitist's panties in a knot, so be it. That, when combined with my annual Union negotiated vacation check, will get me a pretty nice week in Europe.

"But do we know how well performers could be heard or understood before the advent of amplification, especially from those not sitting in the orchestra? "

They could be heard and understood just fine, throughout the theater. They knew how to project sound without necessarily belting. It was part of the talent. And I think audiences knew how to listen; a lost art since the rock revolution of the 60s.

As a trained vocalist, in my opinion, the whole mic issue is a result of audience's latching on to loud, bombastic scores, as we've seen currently the trend on the boards is that the big, loud, overproduced musicals are the one's that survive, while little intimate musicals come and go every season. Quality doesn't equal success, which is unfortunate. The current Broadway blockbusters, Mamma Mia, Wicked, even Phantom are loud and showy, but are hits, unlike the smaller shows like Hands on a Hardbody, that failed to find an audience, some may argue for many reasons, but none can argue scale-wise it's no Wicked. Mics don't distract me, unless they aren't working properly, I want to hear the performance no matter where I'm sitting, but for a vocalist that is well-trained this shouldn't be an issue if you have been taught how to use you're instrument properly and be healthy. I have found lately, straight plays without mics are very hard to hear, especially when you have someone from the medium of film trying to emote and ennunciate to the back row, but instead it comes across as yelling, ie. ScarJo in Cat...I would prefer them to use mics. The recent revival of Picnic was very hard to hear in my opinion, and I was in the orchestra, I can only imagine what it must have sounded like in the mezz. Crucial plot points could get lost in a musical or play if you can't hear the performer. Also, I bet if you asked a costume designer, most nowadays would tell you they design around mic packs out of necessity. I just want to hear what I spent $120 or more on whatever it takes.

As a trained vocalist, in my opinion, the whole mic issue is a result of audience's latching on to loud, bombastic scores, as we've seen currently the trend on the boards is that the big, loud, overproduced musicals are the one's that survive, while little intimate musicals come and go every season.

That's not a current trend. Big loud musicals have ALWAYS been popular since the dawn of Broadway, though a few small shows slip into popularity from time to time like I Do I Do, No Strings, Avenue Q and Spelling Bee.

---

"That's not a current trend. Big loud musicals have ALWAYS been popular since the dawn of Broadway, though a few small shows slip into popularity from time to time like I Do I Do, No Strings, Avenue Q and Spelling Bee."

I don't know. I've heard plenty of talk in very known, reputable agencies and industry places about the increased stress modern musicals put on the female voice, specifically. Asking girls in their twenties to scream-belt their way through As and Fs 8 shows a week isn't healthy on the voice with or without a mic, but yet it's becoming the "norm" and the barometer for "good singing" according to certain types of theatre fans is who can riff and scream the loudest.

---

"I bet you might find people who attend Wicked that have trouble understanding the performance even with mic and a little way back Smoky Joe's Cafe? Glad I knew the lyrics because the sound was completely distorted...?"

Hey, we all have bad nights and bad experiences. Touring is especially difficult, when you're faced with a new theater with new issues every week or two. But on the whole, I think the state of Broadway theater sound reinforcement in is wholly better place than it was even 10 years ago, mic placement be damned.

" As a trained vocalist, in my opinion, the whole mic issue is a result of audience's latching on to loud, bombastic scores, as we've seen currently the trend on the boards is that the big, loud, overproduced musicals are the one's that survive, while little intimate musicals come and go every season."

I think another factor is that people's expectations have changed. 50 years ago, how many households had access to any form of high fidelity audio playback system? AM/FM radios and 45rpm "singles" players were the norm. And today how many households DON'T have access to digital playback? I've heard from more than one patron that a production didn't live up to the quality of the CD. Well, Duh!

Updated On: 5/1/13 at 03:44 PM

I personally find cheek mics distracting and irritating. I like it when mics are cleverly hidden in costumes, like with Dr. Dillamond in WICKED. His mic is disguised as a mole in his mask.

Kelly@ I totally agree, Louder, faster, higher is the current trend to which I'm referring, maybe I didn't clearly articulate that. The norm used to be one 11 o'clock number, now we have shows like Wicked where Elphaba's part is largely one show of 11 o'clock numbers. I was always taught, and it is my opinion, that it is much more impressive to hear a note sang directly, for example, Stephanie's note in "The Writing on the Wall" then hear a singer scoop, riff, or trill on a note, purley because they are unable to hit it directly. Now people love to hear the riffing, it is impressive- I don't find that to be so, I hate it, and I view it as a mark of an untrained/poorly trained/directed singer, unless it is appropriate stylistically, again my opinion. I have preached this to my vocal students, get the basics, then you can play with the style. Scores of modern musicals just aren't written the same as the classics, which is a sign of changing times, I get that, but a good, well trained singer is becoming a rarity in this post American Idol world.

It does seem like we reached a point in hiding body mics and then have made no progress for 10 years now.

But as for the supposed "Golden Age" of miking in the 50s and 60s:

1. Shows were staged differently so that major solos were performed downstage center where the singer could be heard over the orchestra. Even Ethel Merman. Look at the staging of her shows: no singing High Cs from the third catwalk above the stage. The rise of the director-choreographer practically demanded better sound technology (as did the building of 3,000 seat barns all over the country).

2. There used to be an audible crash and even feedback whenever actors moved into a clinch, as the two body mics reacted to each other. If one actor sang toward the chest of another, he suddenly got many times louder. The mics may not have been visible, but they were apparent all the same.

3. Mics were often lost during costume changes, since they were buried in the clothes.

3. In the worst houses (so-called "multi-use" facilities with acoustical tiles), large shows resorted to hand mikes, sometimes even in shows where they were a clear anachronism. Nobody asked why Harold Hill carried a hand mic through the streets of 1911 River City, Iowa, and nobody explained it. Amazingly, audiences made the adjustment, just as they do now with the "Q-tips" protruding from actors' heads.

4. And, of course, there were the always hilarious police radio calls that interrupted scenes and songs.

I agree the sound industry still has work to do, but let's not romanticize the early days of body mics.

Updated On: 5/1/13 at 04:52 PM

Exactly, oasis. And in the case of musicals, it's not as if the audience is pretending that people really sing and dance on city streets. There's already a lot of suspension of disbelief and always will be.

But I wouldn't mind if it didn't appear that every musical takes place on Ash Wednesday...

If you're searching for mics instead of watching the show, you're clearly looking for something to complain about anyway. You have no problem with people spontaneously bursting into elaborately choreographed song and dance numbers but can be pulled out of a show because you see a mic onstage? What an odd perspective on seeing live theater.

The mics are placed where they are placed to meet the technical needs of the show. That's all there is to it. If they could hide the mic through everyone's hairline and have the show sound right, they would.

The argument that good singers don't need mics so no one is talented on Broadway is entirely laughable. I've been at Broadway performances where mics have failed and could still hear the actors onstage because they compensated for the dropped mic. What mics allow, even more than just a higher volume, is the ability to actually mix a show so that everything from the singers to the special effects can be heard no matter where you sit in the theater. It also allows for directional sound that helps guide the viewer during large ensemble numbers or huge set pieces.

There are other tremendous benefits to micing actors in specific ways but you obviously only care about the aesthetics of microphones and not their function.